Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


San Francisco Public Library 


Not to be taken from the Library 

L 500 


to . 1 






MAY 2 9 2002 



ROOM 113 


1 :37 P.M. 

450- R 




ROOM 113 


1:37 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 

3 1223 03273 9865 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 







California Community Colleges, Board of Governors 


California Federation of Teachers 


California Community Colleges, Board of Governors 


California Federation of Teachers 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


California Community Colleges 

Board of Governors 1 

Goals 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Need for Remedial Education 2 

Vocational Education 3 

Efforts to Publicize Cal Grant Program 4 

More Effective Governance 5 

Questions and Comments by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Outreach for Cal Grant Program 6 

Appointments Should Have Attended 

Community College 8 

Jewish Television Network 8 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Ideas to Boost Transfer Rate 9 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Evaluation of Student Preparedness 12 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Relevance of Associate of Arts Degree 13 


Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Different Goals for Students 15 

Possibility of Involving Adult 

Education into Remedial Programs 16 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Length of Most Vocational Education 

Programs 17 

Performance of Cerritos Community College 18 

Percentage of Students Attending for 

Personal Fulfillment Only 18 

Witness in Support: 


California Federation of Teachers 19 

Motion to Confirm 19 

Committee Action 19 


California Community Colleges 

Board of Governors 20 

Background and Experience 20 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Position on AB 2958 (Wright) 21 

Concern about Outreach for Cal 

Grant Program 21 

Faculty Diversity 22 

Governance 22 

Transfer 23 

Report that Includes Goals of Students 23 


Relationship between CalWORKs and 

Community Colleges 24 

Comments by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Community Colleges Logical Entity for 

Job Training and Development 24 

Need for Outreach re: Cal Grant Program 25 

Need for Appointees to Have Attended 

Community College 2 5 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Serious Governance Structure Problem 2 6 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Too Much Emphasis on Transfer Rates vs. 
Vocational Education and Training 2 8 

Questions and Comments by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Need for Basic Skills in Voc. Ed 3 

Opinion on Having Elected Officials on 

Board 30 

Witness in Support: 


California Federation of Teachers 31 

Motion to Confirm 31 

Committee Action 32 

Termination of Proceedings 32 

Certificate of Reporter 33 

--00O00 — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees appearing 
today, George Caplan. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Hi, how are you? 

MR. CAPLAN: Good. How are you? Good 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, sir. 

MR. CAPLAN: It's a pleasure to be here. I think 
you have my personal statement — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's been made part of the 

MR. CAPLAN: — which I submitted. 

I've attended and been functioning on the Board 
for some time. 

The community college system is a great 
opportunity for the state. As most of you know, there are about 
1,650,000 students utilizing the facilities at about 108 
campuses statewide. I like to call this system California 
Unified, because what this really is, is a neighborhood 
community college system that is really an agency of the state. 

I'd like to address only one issue because I 
think it's by far the most important issue. And I'm not going 
to talk about governance, things of that kind, which I think all 
of you are familiar with, and I think you've dealt with, and 
appreciate the limitations of the Board of Governors, and the 
way the governance is set up for the community colleges. 

4 49386 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
88 SFPL 07/07/03 4 

But the goals of the community college system, 
which are basically to encourage transfers from the community 
college system to four-year colleges, basic skills development, 
and vocational training and development and upgrade are all 
driven ultimately by basic skills development. 

In our system, we do not require mandatory skill 
testing. We do not require -- we have no system of mandatory 
remedial education. 

About a month ago, the State University system 
published their own statistics, which they do keep, and about 50 
percent of the incoming freshman class at the State University 
system requires remedial math and/or reading and writing. We 
know intuitively, since we don't keep statistics, we know 
intuitively that in our system the statistic will be much, much 
higher. My guess is probably in the 80 percent range. 

The need for doing a better job in remedial 
education is clear. We have an advantage over primary and 
secondary education in this state, which is that the people that 
come into the community college system come voluntarily, and 
they come to improve their own educational training and 
background. And I think that this a problem that we actually 
can deal with, and that we can deal with in a reasonable period 
of time. And I hope we do focus on it as time passes. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know it's not the community 
college system, but the State University system, I guess, 50 
percent of the people that go there need remedial — 

MR. CAPLAN: That is correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm trying to remember because 
it was a few seasons back, but I think I had to take an entrance 
exam to get into San Francisco State. I remember one of the 
questions was about the guy who flew too close to the sun. You 
know, why the hell they asked that question was beyond me. I 
heard two people who took the test earlier talking about it, so 
I got it right. That had a lot to do with anything. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I wish you'd been standing 
outside before I took the test. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That will be a question, I 
guess, we should ask somebody if they ever come in with another 
Trustee for CSU. 

On community college, they have a voc. ed. 
component, don't they? 

MR. CAPLAN: We have — we do have testing that 
we can administer, but -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I'm now into vocational 

MR. CAPLAN: Yes, of course. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You do have a component? 

MR. CAPLAN: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What percentage of — 

MR. CAPLAN: Of the 1,650,000 students that are 
currently in the system, about 35 percent are full-time, and the 
balance are part-time students and students that are focused on 
vocational upgrade and training. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about those that go 

full-time for a voc. ed. program? 

MR. CAPLAN: I don't know what the percentage is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's a significant part of your 
role; right? 

MR. CAPLAN: It is, absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is the Community College 
Board doing to publicize the new Cal Grant program? 

MR. CAPLAN: I don't know what the individual 
campuses are really doing to publicize it, but I do know that 
because it is available, that virtually all of the campuses do 
provide that information to incoming students, and they should 
know about it. 

Whether we're doing an adequate job on the ground 
or not, I can't tell you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Isn't that something that the 
Board of Governors, because I think that came up the last time 
we had somebody here, for them, for the Board of Governors to 
take an aggressive policy to the various campuses to make this 
available, the information? Because I think we found out that 
the numbers were, the percentages, were really low with people 
availing themselves of it. 

So, I think that it would be important that you 
gc back to the Board of Governors, and you ask the Chancellor to 
find out what's going on. And if they aren't doing it right, 
fcr you people to give them a little boost. 

MR. CAPLAN: That's a fair comment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You mentioned that you weren't 
going to get into the governance structure because we were aware 

of that, which is accurate. However, we're kind of aware that 
somehow, the way it's structured goes for somewhat of a 
muddlesome system, you know, where everybody can point that 

Do you have any ideas how they could either, 
whether it's you or the Board of Governors, or us as the 
Legislature, and I'm sure Senator Romero, having been a Trustee, 
would have something to say about this, but how we could get a 
more effective governance thing with more accountability? What 
would be the problems? How would you do it if you had a magic 

MR. CAPLAN: First of all, it ' s a huge political 
problem because every regional area, local area, has a board of 
trustees that's elected locally. So, they have their own -- 
their own, in effect, supervisory board. They have a local 
administration and so forth. 

Unlike the University of California or Cal State 
University system, this system is really directly a functioning 
arm of the state itself. We are an agency, in effect, of the 

And the Board of Governors, which theoretically 
has the budget control, the umbrella control of the entire 
system, is actually in a position because of the way we are 
structured for governance purposes of negotiating with all of 
these individual areas. 

We have a process called consultation. When we 
suggest an approach to a given problem, we wind up putting it 
through what we call the consultation process, which includes 

the academic senates, the various local arms of these campuses, 
and so forth, their representatives. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You have no authority. 

MR. CAPLAN: So, as a practical matter, we have 
-- we have authority. We do have sort of end-of-the-road kind 
of authority, but by the time you push that through the filter, 
it's very limited. 

There is certain rule making and regulatory 
authority that we do have, so that, for example, if you mandated 
and were prepared to pay for additional classrooms and teachers 
for remedial education, we could pass through our rule making 
authority very specific rules that would govern exactly how that 
money was used so that that money did not find its way into the 
base budgets of the local community colleges. In other words, 
it would be used for a specific purpose. 

I don't think we, as a board, have used that 
authority as effectively as we really should. 

So, there are ways for us to function better than 
we have, in my opinion, that we haven't really utilized, but 
again, it's within certain limitations. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I have a few serious questions 
or comments, and then some that are not so important. 

The last time we had someone before us for 
confirmation to this position, Senator Burton, myself, and other 
Members of this Committee spent a good deal of time talking 
about this issue of outreach, making sure that students and 
potential students were aware of the Cal Grant program. We 

talked about mailings that are done by individual districts. We 
talked about generalized mailings that go out. We talked about 
mailings to graduating high school students. We talked about 
the role that you folks could play in designing, you know, 
f ill-in-the-blanks kinds. 

It's just very frustrating to me to see now, a 
number of months later, you come before us, and apparently 
nothing is happening in that area. 

Have there been discussions at all? 

MR. CAPLAN: Forgive me. It would be an unfair 
conclusion on your part -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I don't want to be unfair. 

MR. CAPLAN: I'll explain why. 

I was appointed to the Board about the middle of 
last year. But my wife was very seriously ill, and I did not 
attend meetings for about six months. She passed away in 
December, and I took care of her myself. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm very sorry for your loss. 

MR. CAPLAN: So, you're kind of addressing a very 
serious problem, and a perfectly legitimate issue to probably 
the least prepared person for this purpose simply by virtue of 
the fact that there were meetings that I didn't attend. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Allow me to rephrase my 
comment. I don't think it was directed at you as an individual. 

But I did understand you, in response to the 
Chairman's question, to say that really, you didn't have a lot 
of authority, and you hadn't done a lot, and you just sort of 
hoped that the campuses would. And there was a good deal of 

discussion the last time we had someone come forth. 

The next question, and this is a semi-serious 
question, have you ever attended a California community college? 


SENATOR JOHNSON: Again, this is not a reflection 
on you, but it certainly is, I think, reflective of an attitude 
on the part of the Governor. 

There are plenty of folks who are well qualified, 
who have direct experience in community colleges. Not taking 
anything away from you, but it's more intended to the gentleman 
seated out here in the front row because I've raised this issue 
before, and the Chairman has raised this issue before: Why 
aren't we appointing people who actually attended or are 
graduates of a California community college? 

You don't have to respond to that. It really 
wasn't intended or directed to you. 

The final question, and this is a matter of 
curiosity, what is the Jewish Television Network? 

MR. CAPLAN: The Jewish Television Network 
produces a wide variety of Jewish programing, some of it — for 
example, we have a cooking show that is widely broadcast on PBS 
stations in a number — 

SENATOR JOHNSON: So, it's like a syndication? 

MR. CAPLAN: Yeah, it is. There are bunch of 
other programs that we've produced over the years. And at this 
point, we probably reach the equivalent of about 130 million 
homes with some of our programs. So, that's what it does, 
notwithstanding perception, common perception, that Jewish 

people, you know, are widely involved in media. 

The Jewish Television Network is tiny, and the 
amount of programing that it produces is tiny. And it is the 
only thing of its kind. But that's what it is. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Very interesting. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


I'm very interested in the issue of transfer. I 
think actually it's probably one of the biggest disgraces in 
California with respect to the numbers, really, I think, the 
poor job that we have done in California with respect to 

On that, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are 
on addressing transfer in a very serious way, the commitment of 
resources, and also what your ideas are, and what you can do to 
boost the transfer rate. It's estimated right now that 20 
percent of the community colleges in California account for some 
80 percent of the transfers. And I'll tell you, they're not in 
East L.A., which I represent. 

What you can do? What is the problem, and what 
are we doing, because typically, community colleges are the 
Ellis Islands of higher education for low-income students, for 
minority students, for immigrant students. It's where I 
started, and I think they play a very valuable role in 
California. But if we can't transfer, we're losing an entire 
generation of students. 

What are your thoughts and ideas and commitments 


on transfer? 

MR. CAPLAN: First of all, I agree with you. I 
agree with everything you've just said. 

The explanation for the problem is really, there 
are a lot of issues that feed this problem. For example, we now 
know which of our campuses receive young people who are the 
poorest prepared. That testing we do have in the system. It's 
a SAT 9 series of tests, and we know by way of an example, 
Compton Community College has the lowest level of preparedness. 
And you would expect that, actually. I mean, intuitively you 
would expect that. 

Without addressing remedial education and finding 
a way to become effective, it's very, very difficult to 
ultimately improve the transfer rate. And that's because at the 
end of six years, I gave you a statistic that out of 
approximately 300,000 students who enter the system, only 30,000 
at the end of six years have completed 56 units, which is the 
equivalent of two years, including transfer English and math — 
that's baseline transfer, credit-worthy English and math — 
100,000 have, after six years, completed 56 units without it. 

Now, the statistics are a little — we don't have 
a good handle on our own statistics, unfortunately. So, when 
you look at this, this is, I think, one of the most serious 
problems we have. And unfortunately, it's tied up with — with 
remedial education, because if kids can't — young people can't 
write sentences, and if they can't do baseline arithmetic and 
math, it's very difficult for them to legitimately transfer. 

Now, there are lots of private schools, by the 


way, four-year schools, that will take our community college 
students after a year, many even without these baseline courses. 
And there are, for example, at the end of six years, a larger 
group of students who have mastered the English and math at a 
transfer level credit course, but don't have 56 units overall. 
And that's because our young people that go to community 
colleges are working, almost all of them, and so they have 
family problems, they have work problems, they have all kinds of 
problems that intervene. 

So, it's a very, complicated issue. We are 
beginning to develop a statistical model that compares community 
colleges based on the preparedness of their students. It's a 
very legitimate approach to this, and then try to figure out, 
using some other criteria — and I ' d be happy to sit through 
this with you individually and really take you through what 
we've done, because it's very recent information -- and try to 
figure out whether a particular community college has done a 
good job or not based upon the preparedness of their students, 
the age level. We find that when students are older than 25 or 
26 years old, it's harder for them to matriculate because you 
know, by then they start to have children, they have families, 
and they're working. I mean, there are all kinds of things that 
feed this problem. 

But if you want to try to boil it down to a 
common problem, the common problem is finding a way to improve 
remedial education at the community college level. And I think 
it's worthwhile because these young people have selected 
themselves to attend. 


And I also think that this is a legislative 
issue. We compensate remedial education at one-half a credit 
course, and we shouldn't. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I'd be very interested in 
learning more and working with you on this issue, because I 
think it is a major concern. 

Let me just ask one last -- go ahead, Senator. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I was just struck by your 
answer that you would attempt to evaluate the job that they've 
been doing in terms of preparedness of their students, but if 
Senator Romero's opening comment is accurate in terms of where 
the students are coming from, I don't know how you'd go about 
doing that on the basis of students who are transferred if in 
some community colleges, a disproportionate share of the 
students who are transferring come from those schools, and a 
disproportionately low percentage come from others. 

How do we go about that without trying to 
evaluate every student in the community college system? 

MR. CAPLAN: Well, I'll just give you two 
statistics that have an impact. 

One is, if the average SAT 9 score composite at a 
college is in the 30th percentile, which means it's 20 points 
below the national average, and that's true with Compton, as an 
example, and you have another community college where the 
composite scores for incoming students now is at 57 or 8, you 
would expect that the college that gets these better prepared 
young people would have a substantially higher transfer rate 
into a four-year college than Compton Community College. 


Now, how is Compton Community College doing, 
given the lack of preparation of its incoming students? And we 
can make some comparisons based on that. And what you find, 
surprisingly, is that there are some colleges who get young 
people who are really quite prepared, but for some reason their 
transfer rate is very low, it's much lower than you would 
expect. So, we're just getting into that. 

The other thing is that in a particular community 
college, the average age of the students is substantially older 
than some of the others. And that, too, plays into this issue. 

So, you need to — you actually need to look at 
this a little bit and to play around with it. 

And by the way, the statistical information that 
I'm giving you is information that was prepared for us just 
literally at our last meeting, which was about two or three 
weeks ago, and it's the result of a matrix that was just 
recently done. 

In other words, we're not very sophisticated in 
trying to figure this issue out. We haven't done a great job in 
trying to come to grips with it. And we need to, because we 
can't -- unless we have proper information, we're not going to 
understand how to address it. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Let me just ask one last 

I've often heard that there's no meaning to the 
Associate of Arts Degree any longer. It doesn't have a great 
deal of relevance. In fact, many students leave the college 
before they get their AA, largely because of the requirement for 


PE. And I know there's a lot of discussion about fitness and 
all of that. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR ROMERO: This is not a commentary on 
those bills. 

But it is an issue, a trend that's been noticed, 
I believe, certainly within the L.A., and I would imagine 
probably reflective statewide. 

There's been some discussion about saying, forget 
the AA, because most 25-year-olds or 40-year-olds are not going 
to gc take badminton or some other form of PE, and maybe just 
focus en the certificates or the transfer-ready, and that's 
different from transfer as well. 

What are your thoughts on that? 

MR. CAPLAN: I don't think that the AA degree, in 
and of itself, makes much difference. 

I think that — and another part of the 
statistics that we were given, and which require some more work, 
but it is clear that we have lots of students transferring after 
only one year, especially those that were able to take and pass 
transfer-level English and math. They leave after a year. They 
transfer almost immediately. So, they don't ever get an AA 
degree . 

I don't think it makes much difference whether 
you have an AA degree or not. I think the real issue is, you 
know, how academically prepared you actually are with the 
courses that you had. Obviously, PE doesn't make any 
difference . 


But I think that what we're trying to do with 
this system is to create a two-year system that becomes a feeder 
for four-year systems. And in that sense, you know, successful 
completion of a certain number of units, whether they include PE 
or not, does matter. But I don't think -- for example, I don't 
think CSU cares whether you have PE or not. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: PE is very important, 
especially if you want to think clearly. 

But anyway, apart from that, your comments, 
though, about the reasons the goals of the students who actually 
attend the community colleges, I have Cerritos Community 
College. Since you're from L.A., you're familiar with that 
school . 

That is one of the better community colleges, I 
would guess. Now, I'm guessing, but I know you don't have a lot 
of data, but as far as academic scores and such. 

However, the people who go there don't 
necessarily want to go on to a four-year college. That's not 
their interest. And it was ranked low, and it really is a very 
good community college. 

I know you need different data, because I think 
you have to look at why is a person attending. 

You had mentioned when we talked that data, to 
get the correct data was difficult. How can that be improved? 

MR. CAPLAN: We are beginning to improve the data 
that we collect. For example, we're trying to figure out which 


of our colleges are chronically poor performers in this area, 
and we're trying to figure out why that is. 

So, if we take a look at -- we tried to feed in 
initial preparedness of students, the age — the population age 
of the students, and also we tried to feed in the articulated 
goals of the students themselves. When our students come into 
us, they do fill out material that indicates whether they have 
an interest in transfer. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: That would be interesting, 
because I think it really isn't fair to tell a community college 
board that their students are not transferring when they don't 
want to transfer and that wasn't their intent. 

MR. CAPLAN: I agree with that. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But I do think the 
transferring should be possible. 

But one of the problems you mentioned, though, 
about their needing remediation, and I brought this up with you 
earlier, but adult education gets in here somewhere. I haven't 
figured out exactly where we need to put it, but adult education 
teachers could do some testing that wouldn't have to be 
recorded, but the student would find out whether or not they 
were able to handle the language and math skills. 

I think there are other ways around this problem, 
because a lot of students never have a chance to really learn to 
write, as you mentioned, and do have mathematical ability, but 
if they had some opportunity to learn it, they'll do very well. 

And I don't know if the community college, if you 


sst them, and you can't record the exam, this is a 


problem. I'm tired of testing, though. 

MR. CAPLAN: By the way, let me give you an 
interesting little snapshot of Cerritos, because using the 
criteria that our staff developed recently, the actual transfer 
rate at Cerritos was 29.67 percent, and the expected transfer 
rate was about 30.6 percent. So, it's very close to performing 
at expectations. So, it's actually not -- it's not -- it 
shouldn't be heavily criticized, frankly. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Maybe they felt like they 
should have been at top. 

MR. CAPLAN: Okay, but again, using this matrix, 
which probably still needs some refinement, but that particular 
campus is doing fine. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Voc. ed. Are voc. ed. programs 
two-year programs basically? 

MR. CAPLAN: No. They are — there are all kinds 
of vocational education programs. There are very short 
programs; there are long programs. It really depends on what 
the vocation is and how much training is required. 

And they do not require full-time attendance, and 
in fact, most of the vocational education, the students who are 
aimed at vocational education do not attend for two years. It's 
over a much shorter period of time, and of course, their goals 
are different than the young people who are trying to transfer. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, that wouldn't fit into any 
of these. So, basically, going back to Cerritos, if 31 percent 
of the people that went there said they wanted to go to a 
four-year school, and 29 percent made it, that was it, and the 


other 69 percent that didn't want to go anywhere, they aren't 
considered failures because they didn't want to go anyway. 

MR. CAPLAN: Right. But, Cerritos may be doing a 
terrific job for training for computers -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're doing a good job — 

MR. CAPLAN: -- or other vocational training. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems to me they're doing a 
hell of a job for the 31 percent that wanted to go on, if 29 
percent of them are doing it. 

MR. CAPLAN: Right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What percentage of community 
college students, or as Ray Johnson used to say, you know, going 
back, just older people, or something, to take, as one of our 
beloved colleagues used to say, basket weaving. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Italian Renaissance painting in 
the case of Mrs. Johnson. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes, and God rest both of their 
souls . 

What are the percentage that just go back to — 
oh, your Mrs. Johnson as opposed to the other — what percentage 
are people that just, they go back, not to fill time, but 
they're going back to just do something useful and learn things? 

MR. CAPLAN: I don't know the answer to that. I 
really don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That would be an interesting 
one, because I think as we get into problems, and as they maybe 
get into community college fees, that the fee for students going 
voc. ed., the fee for students that are transferring, as opposed 


to the Mrs. Johnson, or whoever, that are going there, just 
decide to take a course in Italian cooking, or Jewish cooking if 
they can't get your thing on cable, that it would just be an 
interesting percentage. 

Anybody here from the Board? It'd be interesting 
just to get the number of, like, whatever we might — I don't 
want them right now — but the type of thing we talk about, 
where people are going just to further their interests almost, 
as opposed to their education. 

Do you have any family come with you, Mr. Caplan? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

MS. MICHAELS: Mr. Chair and Members, just 
briefly, Judith Michaels, California Federation of Teachers. 

We support the appointment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, moved by Senator Romero. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Mr. Caplan. 
MR. CAPLAN: Thank you very much. I appreciate 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Melba Muscarolas. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, my name is Melba Muscarolas, and I am responsible — 
I work for SPC, Pacific Bell. I'm responsible for government 
relations and external affairs for northern and central 

And I have been attending some of the meetings 

While I did not personally go to a community 
college, I would like to say that a couple of my sisters did, 
and it was particularly meaningful to our family, because my 
parents are immigrants from Cuba, and we are the first 
generation in the family to go to school. My oldest sister led 
the way by going to a community college, which allowed me to 
sort of find my way to a four-year school. 

My youngest sister has been there a number of 
occasions. She went to train there to be a hair dresser, and 
then went back for her training to be a chef at L.A. Trade Tech 
on both occasions. 

As a member of the SPC Pacific Bell family, we 
have 57,000 employees in California, and we rely very, very 
heavily on California's community colleges to develop and train 
employees for our workforce. 

I believe you all have a statement of goals 
before you. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's part of the record. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: So, I'm just here to answer any 
questions you might have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's your position on 
Assemblyman Rod Wright's legislation? 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Which legislation is that? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you don't know, it's not 


lengthy — 


AB 2958? I can go into a 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, just checking. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: We're in support of AB 2 958. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I thought you were against it. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: No, we're in support. That's a 
helpful piece of legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm sure it is. 

How long have you been on the Board? 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Since about last May I started 
attending meetings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you heard the questions 
that we asked Mr. Caplan. Why don't you just go on, give your 
views . 

One, we're very concerned about the Board giving 
direction to the various campuses in the outreach of the Cal 
Grant. So, we're all for Cal Grants, so you don't have to do 
anything, but we want to see that happening. We raise that 
issue with all of the new governors since the new Cal Grant bill 



We're concerned that the faculty -- at least I'm 
concerned; I think some of Members are and some may not be — 
but the diversity of the faculty doesn't come close to the 
diversity of the students. I'm not exactly sure what step the 
Board of Governors can do. 

The Board of Governors, it seems to me, does not 
have a hell of a lot of power over the operation because they're 
an appointed group operating over duly elected groups. And 
whether or not at some point our Higher Ed. Committee can take a 
look at what we should do about that, but I think all you can 
kind of do is give some direction and nudge, but I guess each 
campus conceivably can do what they want, or at least each 
district . 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Absolutely. 

First of all, on the issue of the Cal Grant 
outreach, actually the Chancellor's office has hired a 
specialist, and we have been very aggressively trying to do 
outreach on that. 

Secondly, with regards to diversity, that is a 
topic that comes up very frequently at our Board of Governors 
meetings. And while we may not have absolute control, I think 
we can provide leadership and direction, and make sure that 
we're getting the facts out there, and kind of helping in a lot 
of different ways. 

I work for a corporation that has a very high 
diversity in their workforce, and so that, to me, is a personal 
goal, to make sure that we reflect the population that we 


serve . 

On transfer, if I could just make a comment. We 
were presented with a very good report that the Chancellor's 
office has done on this transfer issue. I believe that many of 
the Legislature is going to be briefed on that soon. 

I think a lot of progress has been made in 
creating the right set of data to come up with numbers in the 
future. So, in other words, to identify how many people really 
have a goal of transferring, because not everybody does. And of 
those, then really being able to track how many are going to 
private institutions, or how many are going to CSU. And we do 
that also by ethnicity, which I think is important to make sure 
that we're meeting the needs of California's diverse population. 

So, in the next few weeks, I can either help get 
that report to all of you, or I know that the Chancellor's 
office is very excited about being able to present these 
numbers. So, it's definitely a focused area, and I think that 
you'll see improvement, and you'll continue to see improvement 
in the future as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would that report have, again, 
the group that just go back more to not with any long-term goal 
except to maybe increasing knowledge in a certain area for their 
own satisfaction, so we could kind of find out, you know, who's 
going almost because they have to, who's going because they sort 
of have to, and who's going because it's something to do and 
enriches their lives, but when it's all over, the world may or 
may not be better served by Mrs. Johnson's understanding of 
Renaissance Italian art. 


MS. MUSCAROLAS: I think that's absolutely the 
key, is to figure out why the students are there, and then to be 
able to meet the needs that they have, whether it is vocational 
training to get back into the workforce quickly and earn more 
money to support their families, or whether it is a college 
education and transfer to another school. So, that's the key. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Or if it's just -- 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: As you say, right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, I'm not downgrading it, 
but something to do. 

With me, if it came down to -- and I guess we are 
the ones to do it — if, say, you had, to say something 
terrible, do something about fees, I would be more inclined to 
put the fees on those that are just going back to fulfill some 
intellectual exercise of theirs versus somebody that, you know, 
needs voc. ed. to end up not being in the CalWORKs program. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Absolutely, I agree. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And speaking of that, what is 
the relationship, and some of us think too much relationship, 
with the community colleges and the CalWORKs program; do you 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: I don't know that I can answer 
that right now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Some of us think there ought to 
be a greater connection. Some of us think that the community 
colleges are the logical entity in the State of California for 
job training and development. We've got too many competing 


programs, but everywhere there's a community college, and that 
they're best suited to deal with businesses in the local area. 

but that aside, Mr. Chairman, I just want to 
reiterate the comments made to Mr. Caplan. That is, this 
business of outreach and some leadership from your level to 
encourage community colleges to make known the opportunities for 
the Cal Grants to students, to high school seniors, and so on. 
That's very important. 

We've talked about this in the past, and it's 
disappointing that we haven't seen something there. And then 
again -- and it's not aimed at you but the gentleman in the 
front row -- it is inconceivable to me that the Governor is 
unable to find qualified candidates for these positions that 
actually attended a community college. No disrespect intended 
for you or for the gentleman who preceded you up here, but both 
of you attended name universities, went straight through from 
high school, graduated at 22 or so, and had the ability to 
understand the needs of someone who didn't have that 
opportunity, who struggles in a community college, maybe goes 
back, was a high school drop-out, and goes back at 26 or 27 
years of age, for either vocational training or develops at some 
point the desire to go on for a four-year degree. 

Again, no reflection on you, but I think that the 
Governor ought to be looking at appointing people who actually 
have some personal experience with community colleges. 

I have no questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 



And let me just say as well, too, to the 
distinguished gentleman in the front row that I actually do 
share the sentiments of Senator Johnson. I do associate myself 
with the comments of Senator Johnson. 

Transfer's a big issue for me, but I'm not going 
to repeat those questions. You've heard them; you know where 
I ' m coming from. 

Let me ask you about the governance structure. 
You know, I was a former trustee. A number of reports have been 
issued, from the California Citizens Commission, the Little 
Hoover Commission. 

I think that there is a serious governance 
structure problem in our community colleges. I would like to 
see a strengthening, a statewide strengthening of the community 
college system. It's pointed out that even, for example, there 
is no legislative or constitutional officer who is part of the 
Board of Governors, unlike the Regents or the Trustees. 

But it seems to me that there is a fundamental 
problem. And it's so decentralized, it's almost to the point 
of, I think, being ineffective. 

What are your thoughts? What are your responses 
to the Hoover Commission, the Citizens Commission, that 
basically said the governance structure is this muddled 
structure that needs some serious attention? 

And I think if there's a strengthening of the 
governance structure, maybe the community colleges, and I'm a 
product of the community colleges, will begin to, I think, get 
the funding respect that I think it deserves. 


What are your thoughts on the governance 
structure, and specifically, responses to the Citizens 
Commission and the Hoover Commission? 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: I would love to see a 
strengthening of the governance system, without a doubt. I've 
been to meetings slightly less than a year, and I find it a very 
difficult system to work with. 

The community colleges are faced with enormous 
challenges, as many of you have mentioned here, because we play 
such a diverse role for so many Californians, and it needs to be 

I have not studied those reports in depth. I'm 
glad to hear that you agree with that, because I think we do 
need -- we do need help, and the Legislature's help, in 
strengthening that system so that we can more effective and make 
changes quickly in a changing environment. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Thank you. I appreciate that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly hope that Senator Johnson does not 
tell the Mrs. Johnson that we laughed at her desire for 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I've been married for 33 years 
for a reason. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I have one. 

It appears as though, even from Mr. Caplan's 
testimony and your testimony, that we're putting an awful lot of 


emphasis on the fact that community college students don't or do 
transfer to a four-year school. 

I have four community colleges in my district, 
and most of those community colleges are involved in vocational 
training to support the local area. In fact, in the Antelope 
Valley, we have established programs in support of the aerospace 

I just wonder if you believe that there is too 
much emphasis on going to the four-year college as opposed to 
the vocational end of community colleges, and even to the AA 
degree, which does provide for the ability of a student to 
responsibly in the community? 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: I believe that because of the 
transfer report that came out last year, that this is an issue 
that we are very much trying to address and get — 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Let me ask the question 

What you mean the transfer rate? Why are you so 
concerned about the transfer rate? 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Well, because I think the 
Legislature was concerned about it and other folks. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Did we ask the question? 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Not in this particular group, 
but that's as I understand it. 

But let me just tell you that we do focus very 
much -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Even before you got here, there 
was a Legislature. 


SENATOR KNIGHT: History lesson. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Let me just say, and I — first 
of all, I think that's a great point, and I think we do spend 
very much a lot of time on the vocational side of it, because we 
are the ones that keep California working. We keep people 
trained. And when they lose their job, perhaps they go back and 
get training again. So, we're the ones that keep that local 
economy going, and that is very much a big part of the community 
colleges . 

And I think that's a part that works very, very 
well, which I think, you know, the focus has been a little bit 
more intense on the transfer, because I think there was an 
identified problem which, again, we're fixing. 

The vocational side, I think, is very, very 
strong. And it is very important to the local colleges. 


I just don't want to get too far 

away from that 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Absolutely. I agree with you 
SENATOR KNIGHT: Because it is important, I 


MS. MUSCAROLAS: I agree with you. And that's 
where, again, my role in our company, we need technicians, we 
need service reps, we need people that are constantly trained, 
and the community college is a great place to train people to go 
into high paying jobs. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette . 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think that the vocational 


training, though, to get back to what Mr. Caplan said, one of 
the things they have to be, most of them, especially in your 
line of work, I would think, capable in language and 
mathematics. So, we get back to those basic skills again, and 
physical education so they'll be able to stay awake. 

But another thing about the vocational training, 
I took stenotyping, by the way, and I never could learn it. 

But if you do that, you may come back later. I 
mean, I think whatever training we get, we should have a future 
if we so desire. 

I went to a community college. It was called a 
junior college, and it wasn't in California. But everybody 
wanted to go at that particular time. Everybody thought they 
would go to a four-year college. I transferred all those units, 
even more than I dreamed. I even transferred things that they 
wouldn't have taken where I was before. 

But I'm wondering about the structure. Do you 
really think, and I know it's going to be hard on you, but do 
you really think that having elected people would be helpful if 
we had somebody on the Board, because UC and CSU governing 
bodies do? That's hard. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: I think that's probably 
premature for me to say. I know we have a couple of student 
members on the Board right now that are just dynamite, so I 
would welcome getting sort of people from different places, and 
elected, that may be a good strategy. I certainly will give 
that some thought. I wouldn't know just off-hand right now to 
be acle to answer that. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: That ' d be up to us if you're 
going to change the composition of the Board. It's up to the 
Legislature, not up to the Board. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Yes, but I really wanted to 
know, and maybe Senator Romero could help me in that area. 

SENATOR ROMERO: My own point is that I think the 
overall structure is so weak, and there's a need to, I think, 
pay attention to those reports, come up with some remedies. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Maybe we ought to look at 
those reports and look at some legislation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sounds like it cries for a 
select committee. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family with 


Glazer . 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: I do have my husband here, Steve 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

MR. WEIMER: Yes, Mike Weimer, representing 
California Federation of Teachers. 

The Federation has had a chance to talk to the 
appointee, and we would support that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, moved by Senator Karnette. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 



SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson, 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MS. MUSCAROLAS: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

2:30 P.M. ] 

--00O00 — 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
^QyUZ f 2002. 





Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 450-R when orderina. 

Zoo 2. 





MAY 2 9 2^2 



ROOM 113 


1:35 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


1:35 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 




GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


HARLAN HENDERSON, Administrator 

Oil Spill Response, Department of Fish and Game 

ROBERT C. HIGHT, Director 
Department of Fish and Game 


California Association of Professional Scientists 

WYATT T. HART, Member 
Youthful Offender Parole Board 


Youthful Offender Parole Board 



Youth and Adult Corrections Agency 


Bureau of Investigation 

Orange County District Attorney's Office 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 



Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

HARLAN HENDERSON, Administrator 

Oil Spill Response, Department of Fish and Game 1 

Introduction and Support by 


Department of Fish and Game 1 

Mission and Goals 2 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Skimming Oil Spills 3 

Witness in Support : 

TOM NAPOLI, President 

California Association of Professional Scientists 4 

Motion to Confirm 4 

Committee Action 5 

WYATT T. HART, Member 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 5 

Introduction of Family 5 

• Background and Experience 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Definition of Available Confinement Time 8 

Added Time to Wards' Sentences 10 

Commitment Crime Vs . Behavior of 

Ward in Confinement 11 


Hearing Process 12 

Response by RAUL GALINDO, Chair 

Youthful Offender Parole Board 13 

Appearance of Ward before Board 15 


Youth and Adult Correctional Agency 16 


Appearance of Ward before Board 

Determining Whether or Not to Add Time to 

Ward' s Original Sentence 16 

Ability of Board to Modify Staff's 
Recommendation 17 

Questions of MR. HART by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Percentage of Wards Kept for Maximum Time 18 

Drug Program at CYA 18 

Length of Program Vs. Availability of 

Treatment Slots 19 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Chance for Ward to Plead Case before Board .... 20 

Any Increase in Sentence to Conform with 

Length of Recommended Programs 21 



Longer Time Added Due to Unavailability of 
Programs .23 

Nine-month Drug Program Too Long 23 


Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Report Shows 3 Percent of Time Adds 

Were Due to Treatment or Training Programs .... 25 

Discussion between SECRETARY PRESLEY and 

Length of Treatment Programs 26 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Rate of Recidivism 28 

Response by SECRETARY PRESLEY 2 8 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Goal to Enhance Programs and Parole 

Services to Female Wards 2 9 

Comparison of Available Services 29 

Statements by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Issue of Concern for Women' s Caucus 3 

Lack of Female Board Members 31 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Board' s Evaluation of CYA' s Programs 31 

Availability of Programs 32 

Six and Eight Week Programs 33 

Inner Wounded Child Program 34 


Waiting Lists for Programs 35 


Curriculum and Teachers in CYA 3 6 

VI 1 

witn ess in Support: 


Bureau of Investigation 

Orange County District Attorney' s Office 38 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Board' s Responsibility 39 

Inspector General ' s Report 39 

Board Needs to Know Availability of 

Recommended Programs 3 9 

Motion to Confirm 40 

Committee Action 41 


Youthful Offender Parole Board 41 

Introduction of Famly 41 

Philosophy and Goals 42 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Factors Contributing to Board's Decisions to 
Keep So Many Wards until Available Confinement 
Time Runs Out 43 

Amount of Wards Has Doubled in Last Three 

Years to Stay for Maximum Length 4 5 

Definition of Available Confinement Time 46 

100 Percent Increase in Wards Doing 

Maximum Time at CYA 4 8 

Interchangeable Use of Actual and 

Available Confinement Time 4 9 

Review of CYA Programs 50 

VI 11 

Inspector General ' s Report 53 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Voting Majority with Vacancies 55 

Absence of Transitional Group Program for 

Female Wards 55 

Relating to Females Program 57 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Assignment of Wards to Classes 58 

Number of Votes on Board Necessary to 

Extend Time for a Ward 58 

Hearing Officers, Referees, Board Members, 

Board Representatives 60 

Duties of Board Members 60 

Responses by SUSAN WALLACE 62 


Use of Retired Annuitants as Hearing 

Officers 64 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Process for Review of Decisions 65 

Response by SECRETARY PRESLEY 6 5 


Number of Persons Hearing Cases 65 

Categories of Crimes 66 

Motion to Confirm 67 

Committee Action 67 

Termination of Proceedings 67 

Certificate of Reporter 68 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees, Harlan 
Henderson, Administrator, Oil Spill Response. 

Director Hight. 

MR. HIGHT: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members. Robert Hight, Director of Department of Fish and 

It is my honor to be here today to introduce to 
you Harlan Henderson, a 26-year career Coast Guard employee who 
has now taken a job a Director of the Office of Oil Spill 
Prevention and Response in the Department of Fish and Game. 

He has ten years in California. He was Captain of 
the Port. He was in charge of the Coast Guard National Strike 
Force Team, which is the Coast Guard's equivalent to a federal 
oil spill response team. 

He was heavily involved in the Exxon Valdiz oil 
spill cleanup, and he was in charge of United States forces in 
the largest oil spill in the history of .the world in Saudi 

He has both in environmental and industry 
support, and I certainly highly recommend him. Thank you. 

MR. HENDERSON: Senator Burton and distinguished 
Members of the Committee, I'm honored to appear before you 

I provided you with a copy of my formal opening 
statement as well as a copy of my resume, detailing my 26 years 
in the Coast Guard. 

I feel that the work that I do as the 
Administrator to prevent and to prepare for and respond to oil 
spills, and to restore affected resources after a spill here in 
California, will probably be the most important work I do in my 
professional career. 

I feel that I am the right person to do the job, 
in that I'm uniquely qualified to lead OSPR for the following 
reasons. One is, I know the prevention and response business, 
as Mr. Hight has mentioned. I know the issues here in 
California, in that I have spent ten out of the last eleven 
years in my Coast Guard career stationed here, working closely 
with the state. Plus, I have a great staff backing me. Also, I 
have a strong reputation of being able to work with people and 
get things done. 

I have three primary goals for OSPR. First and 
foremost, I want to prevent any spills from happening. I feel 
California has the best prevention program in the country, and 
that ' s why I chose to leave the Coast Guard and come work for 
the state. . . 

Second, I want to be ready. It's not a question 
if a spill will happen, but when a spill will happen, and we 
must be ready. 

And third, I want to partner whenever possible 
with all stakeholders, which includes other federal government 
agencies, the maritime industry, and environmental groups. 

I've been very impressed with the dedication and 
professionalism of the people I've met since I've taken this 
job, and I'm looking forward to meeting the challenges that lie 


1 ahead. 

2 Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any 

3 questions. 

•; CHAIRMAN BURTON: Questions, Members of the 

Committee? Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. I've had 
conversations with Captain Henderson and find him imminently 
qualified for the position, and wish him all the success in the 
9 world. 

MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, sir. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 
12 SENATOR KARNETTE: I'd just like to make a 

comment about the difference between skimming and eliminating an 
oil spill. I think a lot of people might not understand that 
difference, and I was impressed when you explained it to me. 

16 Would you tell me again what the difference is? 

17 MR. HENDERSON: Sure. In an oil spill response 
there's a number of tools in our toolbox that you can do to take 

19 oil off the water. 

2C Skimming is a method. It's kind of like a vacuum 

cleaner where you can suck oil off the surface of the water. 

22 You have dispersants, which is an additive that 

you put to the oil that breaks down into the molecules that 
allows it to break up and biodegrade more rapidly than if left 

25 untreated. 

26 You can do in situ burning, which means burning 
it in place. Put a boom around it and set it on fire. 

28 Again, there's a number of techniques. Skimming 

just happens to be one. 

Also a do nothing option. Sometimes if it's a 
really environmentally sensitive area, and you can't get to it, 
and it's not that heavily coated, you're better off doing 
nothing than trying to get in and disturb the habitat. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think more people need to 
understand those things . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I hope you all were paying 
attention. There's going to be a written test. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

MR. NAPOLI: Good afternoon. My name is Tom 
Napoli. I'm the President of the California Association of 
Professional Scientists. We represent approximately 3,000 
scientists employed by the state in various agencies. 

A number of employees are OSPR scientists, and we 
would like to testify that our members strongly support the 
confirmation of Harlan, and very worked with him over the last 
ten years or so, and have full confidence in his ability as 
Administrator . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have family with you 
here to introduce? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, moved by Senator Knight. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 









Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 

Romero Aye 

Senator Burton 

Four to zero. 








CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 

MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There will be a brief 
five-minute recess. I have to answer a quick message from my 
office, then I'll be right back. Five minutes. 

[Thereupon a brief recess was 
taken. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Committee will be back in 



Wyatt T. Hart, Member, Youthful Offender Parole 

Go ahead, sir. 

MR. HART: Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of the Senate 
Rules Committee, my name is Wyatt Hart, and I am honored to be 
appearing before you today for review and confirmation as a 
board member of the Youthful Offender Parole Board. 

I would first like to take this opportunity to 
introduce my wife, sitting on my right, and my family. My wife, 
Susan; my son Todd, an attorney with the Orange County District 

Attorney's Office, and his lovely wife Polita. And lastly, my 
son Ryan, a First Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps 
who recently returned from deployment overseas with the First 
Marine Air Wing. I am proud to have him with us today, or with 
me today. 

A list of my qualifications, work experience, and 
goals has been previously submitted for your consideration. I 
would like to give you a brief overview of them so I may then 
respond to any questions that you may have. 

Prior to my appointment to the YOPB last May by 
Governor Davis, I was with the Orange County Sheriff's 
Department, retiring in 1988 as a Captain and Division Commander 
of Central Corrections. During my tenure with the Sheriff's 
Department, I received first-hand knowledge of circumstances 
surrounding troubled youth while working parole in economically 
depressed neighborhoods. 

I ran correctional facilities that housed both 
adult and juvenile offenders. Obtained my secondary teaching 
credentials and taught in five different high schools in Orange 
County. I have worked with judges, county probation officers, 
gang • prevention services to steer youth in a positive 

My deep passion for providing the youth of our 
community with tools to better themselves did not stop upon my 
retirement from law enforcement, but rather increased because I 
had the flexibility to devote more time to this goal. My belief 
remains that our youth are the future of our society, and they 
can only succeed through understanding, guidance and 


1 correction. 

Since my retirement, I've been active in helping 
troubled youth avoid drugs and gang prevention through local 
preventions programs. I have served two terms as President of 
Capistrano Valley Boys and Girls Club, which works towards 
helping children. I am still an active board member today. 

I presently serve as an active board member for 
Camp Cookie, an organization dedicated to working with battered 
9 and abused children of Orange County. 

Having first-hand experience with the 
difficulties of the physically challenged has also provided me 
the opportunity to work with ADA, the Spinal Cord Society, the 
Reeve-Irvine Foundation, and presently as a board member for the 
Fran Joswich Therapeutic Riding Center for the mentally and 
physically challenged. I have also been active in the Casa 
Colina Rehabilitation Hospital, and often work with families and 
organizations regarding difficulties facing the injured and 
their loved ones, many of them very young people. 
19 As you can see, my commitment to helping our 

youth succeed as individuals is long-standing, demonstrated by 
21 my many years of volunteer service. That commitment, coupled 
with my extensive law enforcement experience with juveniles, 
provides the background for me to state that I am qualified to 

24 serve on the Youthful Offender Parole Board. 

25 Again, thank you for this opportunity, and I'm 
available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very 

27 much. 

28 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, sir. 

We've got members of the Legislature .that deal in 
public safety issues and budget issues, and they have several 
concerns about the CYA. 

One is that the average stay of somebody in the 
Youth Authority is longer than the stay in Corrections except 
for murder. It's three months longer for robbery, almost a year 
for assault, seven months almost eight months for burglary, 
almost ten months for theft, almost twenty months for sex 
offense, and eleven months longer for drug offense. Doesn't 
make any sense to me. 

MR. HART: Okay, I'm sorry. CYA, in reference to 
the statistics -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In reference to the fact that 
you do less time, that people are doing less time, in 
Corrections, where we figure they're probably a little bit more 
hardened, than they're doing in the Youth Authority. 

Now, part of that might be due to a 
misunderstanding of the Board's members as to what available 
confinement time means. What do you think that means? 

MR. HART: Available confinement time. 


MR. HART: My understanding of available 
confinement time, or ACT, it was set by the Legislature to make 
sure that juveniles do not spend more time for a specific crime. 


MR. HART: Not more time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it's like a ceiling. It 
doesn't mean that's the sentence. 

MR. HART: No, it means it's the time available 
2 in the Youthful -- in the Youth Authority. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, in the letters that we 
got both from you and Mr. Herron, both of you referred to it as 
actual confinement time. 
6 MR. HART: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, it's like 
available time means you can't hold them longer than. It 
doesn't mean that you have to hold them for that period. It 
just means you can't hold them for a period longer than that; 

11 right? 

12 MR. HART: That's correct. 

13 It was my choice to use the word actual, 
available, which to me was the actual available time a ward 

15 could spend in the Youth Authority. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It really means the most time 
17 they can spend. 

MR. HART: Absolute maximum. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, the most. 

20 It is seems that the Board, you know, and I mean, 
when we're saying "the Board" I mean the Board, because I'm not 

22 happy with the whole Board. 

23 But the Board seems to think that that's like the 
mandated time to be served, which may explain why, you know, 
you're better off being in San Quentin than you are in the Youth 

26 Authority; you get out earlier. 

27 MR. HART: Senator, I can't speak for the whole 
Board, but from a personal standpoint, I think that the time -- 


I agree with what you're saying as far as available confinement 
time. And I think that they do a pretty good job in reference 
to rehabilitation and training. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As I recall, it seems that if 
wards have a problem, it seems that they kind of get 
automatically longer time added to their stay than maybe some of 
the events would warrant. You know, some people get, I forget 
exactly what the time added on was, but it was like, for someone 
having a fistfight, which, you know, is something they shouldn't 
do, but some kids do if they're going to a private school even. 
And all of a sudden, they seem to add on time like they're 
adding lunch down there. 

It doesn't make any sense to me, and it doesn't 
make any sense to the Budget Subcommittee people. 

MR. HART: Yes, sir. Well, I can certainly 
appreciate your concern, Senator. 

In reference to when you're in a secured 
environment, such as the Youth Authority, I think one of the 
purposes there, at least as I view the purpose for the YOPB, is 
we're kind of the checks and balances. 

The Youth Authority, whenever something actually 
has the mandate of discipline or placement, you know, of this 
type, and so they bring that to us after they've had their 
hearings and findings, appeal process. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You add the time. 

MR. HART: We look at the time and either agree 
or disagree. Not always -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're the ones who have to add 


the time? 

MR. HART: Yes, sir. But we don't always agree 
with them, but on occasion we do. But we monitor, at least for 
my speaking only for myself, I would monitor, number one is 
probably the commitment offense. Secondly, the seriousness of 
the offense, the consistency and the time, length of time, for 
example, getting it before the Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the commitment offense 
have to do with the misbehavior by the ward in confinement? 

MR. HART: Well, if, for example, let's just say 
for example, a simple example would be if the person was in 
there for assault and battery, stomping someone with their feet, 
creating some kind of injury, and he continued that kind of 
behavior while he was in there, and was in continuous fights and 
trying to injure someone, that would be something we would take 
into consideration. 

We would also take into consideration, an example 
would be that where the fight took place. If it was between two 
roommates, for example, that would be one scenario. Should it 
be in the school where a simple fight could then turn into a 
major riot, endangering other wards and staff as well, then that 
would certainly lead us to give consideration to the seriousness 
of it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In fact, I think, as I recall, 
if you attack the staff, that that's actually, I think, a crime. 

MR. HART: It can be. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, there's a 
difference if you get in a fight with your roommate, a fight in 


the yard, or a fight in the dining hall? What's the difference? 

MR. HART: Well, I think it's a matter of safety, 
Senator. I think, for example, if staff have to move very 
quickly and swiftly to defuse an altercation in an area where a 
fistfight between two, or sometimes one group are ganging 
against another group -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm talking about me against 
you, not them against them; not a gang. 

MR. HART: An individual, even those kind of 
fights in the right circumstances, Senator, could lead to a 
major riot. 

And the staffing, where you have, you know, two 
or three staff, they have to move swiftly, and they have to get 
in and, you know, break up the fight. 

So those, I mean, I'm just giving you some of the 
areas that we would look into and consider at the time we're 
looking to either confirm or not confirm the recommended time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Youth Authority would 
take a look at the facts. I guess the Youth Authority meaning 
whoever 's the institution; right? Running the institution. 

MR. HART: The staff. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And they say you ought to give 
him six more months, and then they go to you with a paper 
recommendation, I mean like the file, a folder, or what? 

MR. HART: Yes, sir. It's the DDMS process, 
which is the disciplinary decision making system. 

The incident occurs. The staff member will write 
a report. They will take -- they will look into it. They 


will -- we'll have a hearing for the young man, and he has an 
opportunity to appeal that hearing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Before you or before the — 

MR. HART: Yes, all of that is done before it 
comes to the Board. And when the Board -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I mean like before you, not 
prior to you. In other words, they appear before the Board, or 
they get a chance to make their case at the institution, not -- 

MR. HART: Yes, sir. They get a chance, 
opportunity, to make it -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They do not appear before the 

MR. HART: Not at that time. They go through all 
that process at the institution and through staff, and then the 
staff brings up their recommendation to the Board for review. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you're the ones that decide, 
wouldn't it make more sense, I guess depending on if it's a 
week or six months, wouldn't it make sense for them to be able 
to appear before the Board? 

MR. HART: I'm sorry, I didn't understand the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you are the ones that really 
impose the sentence -- you impose the sentence; right? 

MR. HART: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, you impose it 
by either saying yeah or no. 

MR. GALINDO: If I may, honorable Senator, I'm 
the Chairman of the Youthful Offender Parole Board, Raul 



If I can add, the average stay of a ward in the 
YA is governed by the behavior of the ward. 

Yes, he comes before us. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about in prison? Good 
time, time taken off, getting in fights, losing good time 
credits. Same deal. 

MR. GALINDO: Right, and we do grant time cuts. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, no. The point is, same 
deal, prison-wards. Longer if you're a kid than if you're an 
adult in state prison. 

MR. GALINDO: I think the majority of the wards 
in the YA are immature as compared to the people in CDC. And 
they act more impulsively than the people in CDC. 

Fights, you know. There is a difference. A 
fight, like you said, between two people -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're going to be coming up 
for your own confirmation; right? 

MR. GALINDO: I hope so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So why don't we — 

MR. GALINDO: Anyway, just only that -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to come and testify 
at his hearing? 

Why don't you just let us talk to the gentleman, 

MR. GALINDO: No problem. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then, if we need expert 
testimony, we'll bring you back. 


MR. GALINDO: Thank you. 

MR. HART: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess the question is, do you 
know why the ward would not be able to appear before the 
Youthful Offender Board if you're dealing with his length of 
term, or her length of term? 

MR. HART: Only because I believe it's the 
procedure . 

CYA, the California Youth Authority has 
responsibility for the discipline of those that are -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You add the time. They don't 
add the time. They make a recommendation. It's like, you know, 
you were the sheriff, right, or deputy. 

MR. HART: Right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you recommend disciplinary 
action -- let's make it a police commission, because I don't 
know how the sheriffs work. 

But the captain recommends disciplinary action 
against the beat cop. It goes to the commission. They impose 
the sanction, not the captain. 

MR. HART: Yes, sir, after checks and balances. 
That's correct. So we do -- we do that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the cop, as I recall, at 
least in my city, they can appear before the commission? 

I'm just wondering, and maybe the Secretary could 
tell us, would it be burdensome for the person, for the ward, to 
appear before the Youthful Offender Board when they're adding 
time to him? 


SECRETARY PRESLEY: It's my understanding — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For the record, Secretary 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: It's my understanding, 
Mr. Chairman, that the Youth Authority has an appeal process 
that they exercise and go through. And then, when that's 
completed, they make their recommendation to the YOPB. It could 
be for 90 days, or 6 months, or whatever. And they can agree or 
disagree. Sometimes they disagree, and sometimes they agree. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That wasn't really the 

As long as we're at that, maybe somebody could 
give us the percentages of agreement and disagreement. 

But the question is, what would be the problem 
with the ward, who may be getting six months added to a two-year 
time, which in theory could be a 25 percent increase or so in 
the time that they're doing, what would be the problem with him 
being able to make his case before, shall we say, the judge 
who's imposing sentence? 

I mean, there may be a problem; I don't know. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: It would be a procedural 
problem, but I'm sure, you know, that you can work that stuff 
all out. 

The Youth Authority has a system, and that's the 
way it is now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Youth Authority's invested 
in the deal. Their responsibilities -- 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: But in the final analysis, 


they can only make a recommendation to this Board, and .they have 
the final word. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Board's the one that 
approves, disapproves. 

Can they modify the recommendation? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, so they're the ones. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I hear what you're saying. 
You're saying, why doesn't the ward get in front of the Board 
sooner? I think that's what you're saying. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know. Maybe there's a 
reason with so many of them. Maybe it's a hardship. Maybe who 
knows what? I don't know if there's a valid reason why they 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I think it works pretty well 
like it is, frankly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you're not in there doing 
more time than somebody in prison. It works well for me, too. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: No, I've sat on this Board 
myself, and I know, I think, how that works. 

And the only thing I see you're saying is, bring 
them earlier before the Board, and I don't know if that would 
solve anything, because they've got the final say anyway. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm asking why not. I'm not 
necessarily advocating it, but I'm asking why not? And if 
somebody can't say why not — 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: There is no absolute why 
not. It could be done. But procedurally, it would take some 

changes. I don't know that the net results would be, much 
different . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many of the people they 
keep, do you know, a percentage of the wards are kept for the 
maximum time? 

MR. HART: I don't know the statistics on that, 
Senator. When you say by the maximum time -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now we're talking about the 
available confinement time. 

MR. HART: Available time, to the end of it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can't keep them longer 

MR. HART: I'm not sure what that percentage is, 
but I'm quite sure that we could get it for the Senate. I don't 
know off the top of my head what that percentage is. 

MR. PRESLEY: Mr. Chairman, we are working on 
this, Mr. Chairman. We had a discussion about this about a week 
or so ago. 

One of the reasons that I always get that we 
can't come up these kind of figures is, we don't have the 
technology to do it, that we can do it out of a shoe box. So, 
we decided, okay, do it out of the shoe box, because we've got 
to come up with these kinds of stats and answers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of my favorite programs is 
the drug program there. Have you had a chance to witness 
exactly what they do in the drug programs? 

MR. HART: No, Senator, I haven't. Although, the 
Chairman -- we are working out a system where -- my schedule, I 


do not set my schedules, so I haven't been allowed to. I have 
talked with some of the instructors. 

We are presently working on, with the Chairman, a 
program so that we, one day a week, as long as we can not have a 
backlog in cases, to -- that we'll take a training and a 
visitation day so that we can start going out and actually 
sitting through the programs as much as possible. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Probably needs some training to 
evaluate, although I think with your history in law enforcement, 
you could probably figure it out. 

But I don't know if it takes training to see what 
they're doing. There's over a thousand wards waiting to get 
into a program. 

MR. HART: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if that's a 
function of desire, or lack of funds, or both. 

We met with the CYA people, and I went into this. 
I don't know if you were there, Bob, or not. But a year ago, 
when they had the program it was like a year program. And I 
think they've now shortened it to nine months, which in most 
drug programs, you know, are like 28 days. For some reason, 
they keep somebody in a program for nine months. 

If they're in program for nine months, somebody 
isn't getting in because of the available slots. And we tried 
to impose upon, I think it was the Director, what we thought was 
the importance of reducing the time of the programs. They can 
do after-care programs with people that would volunteer, and 
whatever, AA, NA, PA programs where you have recovering addicts 


and drunks that are happy to crime in and try to straighten kids 
out, because that's part of their whole recovery. And we found 
out they don't utilize that much. 

And then, what you ought to really take a look at 
if you want to really feel good about what they're doing, is see 
their coloring books. I mean, they have books for these kids as 
part of a drug program, it looks like they're giving it to 
six-year-olds in kindergarten. That's their program. 

I mean, to me that's a disgrace because, one, if 
these kids don't come out clean and sober and better off, 
there's no sense in having them in. And if they come out worse, 
there's really no sense in having them in. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was just a little confused. Does the ward ever 
get a chance to plead his case before the Board? 

MR. HART: Yes, sir, he does. 

The process, Senator, is that the staff do the 
investigation, and they have a procedure. When the procedure -- 
he also has -- they tell him what their findings are, and he has 
the ability to appeal. And if they appeal, it goes to the 
appellate or the appeal process. 

At the conclusion of that, he is brought to us 
for a DDMS hearing, which is a disciplinary hearing, at which 
time we look at -- we go over the entire incident. We talk to 
staff. We question staff. We also talk to the ward in 
reference to that. Then we either concur with or change the 
recommendation . 


SENATOR KNIGHT: Secondly -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm missing it. I thought they 
didn't go to the Board. 

We're talking about the added time. We're not 
talking about the initial. 

MR. HART: No, the added time. 

Senator, I thought you meant during the 
investigation . 

But no, they come to the Board, DDMS hearings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So the discussion we had didn't 
have to be had? Is that what I'm hearing? 


SECRETARY PRESLEY: It's what we pointed out. It 
comes to the Board eventually. They have the in-house processes 
first . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, no. Before they make their 
decision, the ward comes -- this is for the added time -- and 
the ward does come to you, or he's before you. You know, you 
guys are there, and I'm the guy and you're the ward and you're 
there, able to explain the whys and wherefores? 

MR. HART: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You know how to cut through 
stuff; don't you. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Well, I wanted to make sure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Very helpful of you. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Secondly, are the sentences ever 
increased to coincide with the length of programs within the 



ME. HART: On occasion through treatment, you may 

have to move their parole ccr.sidera'icr. cats forward for or.em to 
be able :c complete the program. 

However, what we do, ar.o I'm speaking for myself, 
is that of there's sere reason that ne 010 not complete ere 
progran. because of his own doing, fcr example, disciplinary 
problems, refused to go, refused tc attend -- 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I'm talking initially. 

MR. HART: But at that tine, fcr example, if it's 
something tnat oion't — 

SENATOR KNI3H7: :;c extenuating circumstances. 
Just, you know, you got a nine-month program, for example, en 
drug rehab. Kid comes in. 

Do you give him nine mentis sc tnat he rat 
complete that program, as opposed to seven months? 

MR. HART: If tnat program is felt tc oe neecee 
for nis treatment and training, yes. 


SECRETARY PRESLEY: Senator Burton and Senator 
Knight, we spent some time with Senator Karnette :r. this issue a 
week or so ago; this issue that we 1 re talking about, where 
t rate's mere t ime fcr t r ea tment . 

And I think we all agree tnat when it is one 
fault of tne state, tne state ices not have the resources, toe 
don't have the programs, then tnat ' s unfair t: the ward. 

I think we're going to have tc take the position 
that if you've been here seven months, we'll say, and t: 


omplete this program you've got to do two more, that we're just 
going to have to start saying because -- and they're saying the 
reason is, the fault of the state, they don't have their drug 
program, they don't have the anger management, whatever it is, 
we the Board is just going to have to start saying, they're 

That is unfair. That's really an unfair portion 
of this. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you've been keeping them in 
just because there's no program available? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: That has happened. It's 
rare, but it's happened. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'll bet it's more than rare. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I've been told it's less than 
one percent, but even that's too much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We had heard that before. But 
basically, you have a drug treatment program that is nine times 
longer than the best drug programs anywhere in the country. I 
mean, nine months in a drug program because, as I remember from 
the discussion, you know, it's like, well, they do it one day a 
week, or something. It makes no sense. 

I mean, you do not need nine months for a drug 
treatment program. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Well, if he's already in 
custody, and he's going to be in custody, that may not make that 
much difference. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yes it does, because there's a 
thousand people waiting to get into the program, and they can't 


get in because somebody else is in there. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Well, they've got this 
program full, though, and they do other things. One day they 
may be in anger management. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Bob, trust me. You do not need 
nine months to do a drug rehab program. There are 28-day 
programs anywhere in the country, and then the program goes for 
the rest of their life. But they do not have to be in the 
actual program for 28 days. 

And the other part of it is, in theory, that 
there should not be any drugs or booze available to the ward 
there. So therefore, after the 28 days, they are not going to 
be slipping, and they probably won't slip, if they do slip, 
until they get out. And hopefully, after they do the 28 days, 
they've got the after-care programs which they can do at night, 
do in the mornings, whatever, with these other people coming in 
and talking to them, and having their own AA meetings, and their 
own group stuff. 

Because otherwise, one, there isn't any room, and 
some guy's doing extra time because the state's got a hell of an 
idea: Let's do nine months; it used to be a year. 

Make it four years, nobody gets out. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I thought we were making 
progress. We went from a year to nine months. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Bob, you've been making 
progress since you've been there. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: You've got a point. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm tired of having a point. I 


want to get results at some point. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: The people that are involved 
in this say you just can't do it in 28 days. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, the people involved in it 
don't know what they're doing, one. 

Two, I'd like to give you the copy of the books 
that they use as part of their thing. I mean, it's the 
damnedest thing. It's almost like coloring books your kids are 
going to get if they go to Denny's with you. Or, in our case, 
grandkids . 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: We'll take another look at 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, we're going to take a look 
at it. I'll tell you, I'm very tired -- and I'm sorry that this 
is coming on your watch -- I'm very tired of how the Authority 
and the Board operate, and have operated, before either of these 
gentlemen were appointed. And it's a waste of taxpayers' money, 
and it doesn't do, to my mind, any good. 

I 'm sorry, Pete . 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I was just going to, you know, 
continue on. 

It says here that according to the YOPB's 
analysis, last year approximately 30 percent of the time adds 
are given because of one of three different conditions: They 
need more treatment or training; they have not completed a 
program; or the ordered program is full and they have to wait. 

So, it's more than one percent, Bob. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Well, the program's full and 


they have to wait, that's the part that I'm saying is unfair, 
and that's what I'm told is less than one percent of that group. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, it's 29 percent 
for the two, and one percent for that. Tough to believe. 

It's tough to believe because the Authority 
arbitrarily sets the dates of these programs. You could set it 
for any length you want. The ward's got no beef about it; we've 
got no beef about it. And so, they're in there for a longer 
time than they would be because they decided this ought to 
really be like a 16-month program, whether you need it or not. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I think it's good — I 
welcome you looking into it. We'll look into it with you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, we're going to have the IG 
look at it. I ain't got time to look at it. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, one, lack of 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Whatever it is, we'll look 
into it with them. We're just as eager as you are to find out 
if there are problems with it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Either way, because every 
time -- 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Because our objective is the 
same at yours. We want to save the taxpayers money. We want to 
make this run as smoothly as we can. We'll be glad to look 
into it with you or IG, or whoever wants to do it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I feel like Bill Murray in 
"Groundhog," I've heard this before. 


SECRETARY PRESLEY: But the one thing that we've 
conceded with Senator Karnette, you know, that when it's not 
ward's fault, it's the fault of the state, they either don't 
have the resources, whatever reason, then they should not be 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But then you know what you 
ought to do? Do we need a law that says, you have to come to us 
and tell us exactly what the length of every program is, and 
justify it, before you can enact it? Because you can put the 
program in at any length of time you want, and the kid can't get 
out until he finishes a program. Where he could have passed a 
test in two months, but we decided to make it eight. That 
doesn't make sense. 

I mean, if you have a legitimate program, a 
legitimate time, and the kid's a screw-up and doesn't do it, 
then you think there's some benefit to who knows who, to who 
knows what, to keep them another four months, or whatever it is, 
you know, that can be open to question. 

I mean, other than that, I just don't think 
because, you know, because the length of the programs are -- if 
we didn't beat you up, the drug program would have been a year. 
We beat you up, so now it's nine months, so nobody's going to 
have to stay an extra year. They'll only have to stay an extra 
nine months . 

I mean, it shouldn't work that way. The length 
of the program should be determined by people who know what 
they're doing. 

Senator Karnette. 


SENATOR KARNETTE: I was wondering about 
recidivism. Do you keep track of the young people that are 
released and whether or not they return? Is there any way to do 

MR. HART: You know, I'm sure they may have some 
statistics. I'm not aware of them. I don't have them with me 
today, but I can certainly talk with the staff and get whatever 
facts that we have from CYA and get it back to you, Senator. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I would really like to know 
that, because if the programs are effective, and maybe the ones 
that don't come back -- of course, there may not be a 
correlation -- but if they have these programs, we would hope it 
would help them so they wouldn't have to return. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: On that question, we'll get 
specific figures, but I think they're about 50 percent. I've 
been told they're about 50 percent. Half and half: Half make 
it, and half don't. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: For how long? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I don't know how long. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I would like to know how far 
in the future. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Probably during their parole 
periods, what I would guess. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If they're keeping them for the 
maximum time, there ain't no parole period. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: That happens occasionally. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think when the Chairman is 
up, we'll give a list of statistical information that we want, 


including: What are the programs; what's the length of the 
programs; why are the programs as long as they are, and; what is 
the benefit either for the ward, or the state, or to somebody, 
for the program. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I'm sure he's taking notes 
and we'll have that, and justification. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, this is getting very 
close to like BT was, and some of the others, and find out this 
isn't in the budget for it. 

Senator Romero. 


I was reading through your short-term goals, your 
stated short-term goals. One of them in particular interested 
and concerned me. 

Your fourth goal states that you would like to 
enhance programming and parole services for female wards. And 
you go on to say that you would like to make services provided 
to females equal to those provided for males, to the extent 
feasible. . . 

Can you explain what you mean by this? And can 
you draw for the Committee a comparison of the services that are 
available to men, to male wards, which perhaps are not available 
to females? 

MR. HART: I would just say probably, just to go 
right to the main issue to answer your question is, for example, 
parole services, after parole service. For example, the males 
have a TRP, transitional residential program, for example. 

SENATOR ROMERO: That was in your long-term goal, 


I noticed. 

MR. HART: Yes, and they kind of dove-tail 
together, because we don't have that for the females. 

SENATOR ROMERO: There is no transitional program 
for the females? 

MR. HART: No, ma'am. To my knowledge, there's 
not . 

And I just think that in many of the cases, 
whenever we are taking someone after they've been incarcerated, 
or they've been confined or placed at the California Youth 
Authority for an X period of time, that the sudden release back 
into the community is maybe unfair. And allowing them a gradual 
reentry would be helpful to them, and also would help us provide 
them more of the parole services that are available: jobs, 
education, and stuff of that nature. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Any other programs that you have 
noticed that are not available to female wards? 

MR. HART: I would have to -- I would have to 
kind of maybe try to refer to my notes. But for example, I 
don't think that they have quite as many vocational trainings in 
their facilities as maybe they do in the male facilities. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I would just say I think this is 
an issue of concern for Women's Caucus in particular. We've 
increasingly taken a look at incarcerated women, and again, this 
would apply to the minors as well. 

I would hope that the TRP issue would be 
transitioned to do the short-term list, as opposed to the 
long-term goals. That's very effective in the success rates and 


preventing the recidivism from that ultimately occurring. So, I 
would urge that to be done expeditiously. 

Senator Burton, I would just point out as well, 
too, again, just taking a look at the composition of the Board, 
there are no women members of the Board. I think that's a 

I would hope for the distinguished gentleman 
sitting in the front row again, there are two vacancies that are 
going to be coming up shortly. I would hope that we would begin 
to see some women candidates being brought forward. 

And in particular, given that you did raise the 
issue, I appreciate that you raised the issue. I think it's a 
concern that needs to be addressed. I would hope that we can 
get some female nominees for this, what I consider to be a very 
important board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know how your Board 
evaluates the quality of the programs that they have in the 
Youth Authority? 

What I mean you, the Board. Do the members of 
the Board look at the programs to see whether they're available, 
what they do, how they work? 

MR. HART: Yes, sir. Basically whenever we, at 
the initial hearing, if I'm answering your question properly, is 
that we recommend -- we get recommendations from the staff 
because they're the experts. They're the one that spent the 
time with the youth, and we spent time with the youth also. And 
then we recommend programs for them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any idea whether 


the programs work or make sense? 

MR. HART: To my knowledge, in the short time 
I've been there, I think that they do work. And we mainly do 
that by talking with the staff on the criteria, but also talking 
with the wards. And then we monitor. We're able to monitor 
them, for example, while they're in the facility, and also after 
they leave the facility. 

I think the success of the programs that they 
take can best be, you know, reviewed in that manner. I mean, 
how they are acting, and how they have progressed. 

So, after the program, we see them in a 
controlled environment, and then we can monitor them in the 
parole setting on the outside. And I would think that would be 
our best bet as far as reviewing the success of the programs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Or even the common sense of the 
programs . 

You could order a program in which you know 
whether or not the program's really available for the ward, 
whether the ward's going to get in it, or what? 

In other words, again, you could recommend the 
drug program, and the ward could be 1001 instead of 1000 waiting 
to get in. 

MR. HART: My understanding, Senator, on that is 
that basically whenever it's initial, when we set the time and 
we order the programs, we order the programs, and then it's up 
to the CYA, the California Youth Authority, for their placement 
and to get them into the program at the proper time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't it make sense that 


when you order the program you say, Hey, is that available? 

In other words, you do what you think makes sense, 
but you don't even know whether or not -- like, one of the 
things that we have picked up that the Board told the CYA person 
that a kid needed to see is a psychologist. So, they've got one 
shrink for 640 wards. By the time he probably got to see the 
psychologist, either he was too far gone to need one, or might 
have been out . 

In other words, does the Youth Authority say, 
yeah, you ought to take automotive shop, but unfortunately 
that's full; let's put him in woodshop, to use a high school 
phrase? They don't -- 

MR. HART: To my knowledge, no, Senator. And to 
my knowledge, most of them get into the programs. 

The specific drug program you're referring to, 
the formalized drug program, which is nine months, but most of 
the other programs will run six weeks, or eight weeks, or 
whatever. But they also have -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would those programs be? 

MR. HART: Anger management, for example. I'm 
not certain. Anger management, parenting, employability skills, 
gang awareness, those kind of programs. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They're six weeks, and drugs 
are nine months. Makes a lot of sense. 

MR. HART: During their drug program, not to 
defend the program, but during the drug program, they're 
doing -- I think it's the amount of time that they spend at the 
drug program, but they're also continuing with their education 


and everything else during that nine-month period. 

But we also have a pilot program at I believe 
it's Dewitt Nelson. And it's been reduced down to a condensed 
course on drugs, down to six to eight weeks, I believe it is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know about the Inner 
Wounded Child program? 

MR. HART: I know -- I have a general knowledge 
of it, yes, sir. It's only offered in the north, but I do have, 
yes. It's an impressive program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does anybody know what it is? 
It sounds good. 

MR. HART: Well, what it is? The Inner Wounded 
program is, to my knowledge, there's many times that a child -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You actually could have changed 
your name to Johnson, and you could be sitting here. 

MR. HART: I thought about that, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're just getting the brunt 
of the whole operation. 

MR. HART: That's fine, and I know he's feeling 
good about it. 

[Laughter. ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We've got a few bullets left. 

MR. HART: The Inner Wounded Child, I talked with 
them sometime about it, is because, you know, some of the young 
people we have, it is basically felt that sometimes a child is 
scarred very deeply at a very young age. It could be three, 
four, five years old. And that scar never changes, or that 
fear, or that hatred never changes. 


But the Inner Wounded Child, to make it 
simplistic, is that they bring that child in, and they try to 
take him back through, you know, conversation, and just reliving 
their life. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What happened to him as a kid 
maybe is why he's here now. 

MR. HART: It's why he's doing it. And then once 
they find that, and he finds that out, then he or she is then 
able to address it, and maybe get away from the violence, maybe 
get away from the drugs, or whatever. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's available at five 
facilities, which I guess you said are in the north? 

MR. HART: I believe they're in the north. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Five facilities. The maximum 
capacity of the programs, in the 80s, and there's 212 waiting to 
get in. 

Who's in charge? Who's the one that determines, 
and this is more to the Secretary, who determines like these 
programs, let me just go through them quickly. 

The informal substance, we know there's a 
thousand waiting for the big one. 

The Informal Substance Abuse, there's 465 on the 
waiting list. Wounded Child, 212. 

Impulse Behavior, there's a maximum capacity -- 
now, this makes no sense -- of 111; there are 36 in the program, 
104 on the waiting list. So, I don't know why you've got slots 
and people aren't waiting. 

Domestic Violence, there's a maximum capacity of 


94; 55 in and 51 waiting, which almost you could out. 

Relating to Females, 93 capacity; 45 in, 50 out. 
That would actually, again, be a wash. 

Anger Management, they're almost full up, but 
there's 1600 waiting. 

Is this the Board? This sounds like a very 
screwed up place to me. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: That's all -- CYA is custody 
and treatment. They have responsibility for all of that. 

The Board, they're basically hearing officers. 
They hear these cases that are brought before them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the CYA's under your 
umbrella; right? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: [Nods affirmatively.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Has Senator Polanco seen this 
stuff? He ought to. 

Again, it makes their job pretty tough if they're 
sending people to a movie that's sold out, and kids are waiting 
in line in the rain, basically. And it doesn't make them look 
too good when something's not -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have a question about who 
decides what programs are given to the young people, the wards 
in the CYA? Who takes care of the curriculum? Who actually 
does the teaching or the leading? 


SENATOR KARNETTE: Who are they? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: When they first come in, they 
have what's called an initial hearing conducted by the Board. 


And the Board, in reviewing their record, and their crime, and 
everything that's taken place, makes a determination of what 
kind of programs that they think, the Board thinks, they should 
engage in. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Are these academic as well as 
vocational, as well as social, as well as -- 


SENATOR KARNETTE: -- as drug? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: But then, after they do that, 
Senator Karnette, then the Youth Authority is the provider of 
the programs, implementor of the programs. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: They hire the teachers or the 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: They do all that. 

The Board is very small, really. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: And they're not under the 
control of any kind of public -- it's public, but it's not like 
teachers in public schools. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: They're under the control of 
the Youth Authority, the Director of the Youth Authority. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, the teachers and the 
leaders, they have to be certificated and all of that? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Right. The Youth Authority, 
I think I told you the other day, is organized into a school 
district. They're actually a school district. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, then there is a 



SENATOR KARNETTE: And who is that? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: They just got a new one. The 
one retired, the lady. It was a woman in charge. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think that that might be 
something to look at, if the superintendent -- 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: The superintendent works — 
reports directly to the Director of the Youth Authority. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Do they report on attendance 
and all of that? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: All of that stuff. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: That might be a route to 
travel . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any other questions. 

Witnesses in support. 

MR. BLANKENSHIP: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, my name is Don Blankenship. I'm currently the Chief 
of the Bureau of Investigation of the Orange County District 
Attorney's Office. I've been in law enforcement for over 30 
years and have worked my way through the ranks with a stop for 
14 years as the President of the Santa Ana Police Officers 
Association . 

Thirty years ago this July, I will have known 
Wyatt Hart, and I'm proud to say he is my best friend. Wyatt 
not only -- I'll be brief -- not only can do this job, is a man 
that will vote his conscience and make you proud. 

That's all, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition. 

Before we come to the vote, and, you know, this 


would be to Mr. Herron, too, you all have a responsibility that 
think goes deeper than what you may think it to be. I think, 
just listening here, I feel you've got a responsibility when the 
Youth Authority -- I mean, the way they run their program makes 
me wonder, would I believe them if they came in and said, "Give 
another six months to this kid because he got into a fistfight 
or something. " 

It just seems to me, as we went down these 
records of vacancies and needs, which I do believe that the 
Board's not aware of, because you assume, well, this is what 
they do; they know what they're doing; all we're doing is this. 

What we are going to do is, we're going to send 
each of you a copy of the Inspector General's report which, I 
think, there's going to be criticism in there, but a lot of it's 
more systemic. I think it will help you do your job better 
because you'll be able to say, "We're going to send this kid to. 
anger management. When can you put him in?" 

I think you have to, because you've got the 
responsibility of setting time for these, kids. You're the 
judges, in effect, of setting the time. And I think that you 
can help us a great deal by putting their feet to the fire, 
because I'm very unhappy with the operation of the Board, but I 
think I'm more unhappy with the operation of the Youth 

For instance, again, I'm just looking at 
something, the five most freguently ordered programs, and they 
make sense. Victim awareness; know what it's like. There are 
360 slots, 322 in it, 2,000-plus trying to get in. 


The gang thing, which again, you know, when I was 
a kid, it wasn't that much of a problem. Big problem now. 
There are 689 slots; 553 wards, so you've got people in, and 
1700 waiting. 

Anger management, I said that they're almost full 
up, but there's 1600 waiting, formal thing. 

Voc. ed., which is a very big deal, because 
hopefully these kids find out how to make a buck without robbing 
people, they're maxed out, you know, give or take. There's a 
waiting list only of 343. That's not bad. 

But I think we should send to each member of the 
Board a copy of this, and I think one to the head of the Youth 

We're going to be taking a closer look at this. 
I'm sorry that you had to be first up at bat, bear the brunt of 
how a lot of us feel. Presley got it. Susan Wallace got it. 
Jerry Harper got it. The people on the Board didn't get it. 

So, I think it's important for them to know 
what's going on, because it'll just help you. 

And I think that, you know, it's up to you also 
to help. They make it tough for you to do your job. If they 
were doing their job right in theory, we all would have been out 
of here, and you would have been having a cocktail with your 
family. So, you're bearing this. 

I will move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 

MR. HART: Thank you very much. 


MR. HERRON: Mr. Chairman, honorable Members of 
the Senate Rules Committee, good afternoon. My name is Ronald 
Herron . 

I'm honored to be here today. I'm appearing 
before you, as you well know, for a confirmation vote as a Board 
member of the Youthful Offender Parole Board. 

I would first like to introduce my wife and 
family who are present here today in support of confirmation. 
If my wife would stand up, that's my wife, Greta; and my mother, 
Gail Herron; my sister, Michelle Herron; my brother, Mark 
Herron; my daughter, Tiffany Herron; my daughter, Cherie. That's 
my daughter Cynthia. She's a little shorter than the rest of 
the family. And my daughter Tiffany. 


MR. HERRON: Michelle, I'm sorry. 
[Laughter. ] 

MR. HERRON: They're twins. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I've sure got a lot of 
confidence in you already. 


[Laughter . ] 

MR. HERRON: And my son-in-law, Gary. 

Thank you. 

A listing of my experiences and qualifications, 
as well as my goals as a Board member of the Youthful Offender 
Parole Board, are the subject of documents that you already 
have . 

Basically, just a bit about my philosophy; 
although, I'm sure the Committee is aware that my career has 
spanned over 32 years in the filed of law enforcement. 

I bring to the Youthful Offender Parole Board a 
balanced approach to the challenges of rehabilitating and 
transitioning California's youthful offenders back into the 
community as successful, pro-social individuals. The balanced 
approach that I speak of is comprised of services, education, 
and treatment, with accountability as well as progressive and 
independent thinking. 

Relative on to my vision, my vision is an 
after-care program that is community-based throughout the State 
of California. I believe that the continuum of care is critical 
to helping youthful offenders become contributing citizens in 
their communities as well as enhancing public safety. 

The most critical aspect of a treatment program, 
I believe, is building an adequate bridge for youthful offenders 
to successfully transition from a highly structured 
institutional environment back into the community. That's the 
tough part. 

I look forward to working with the California 


Youth Authority and focusing up on my vision. Given this brief 
overview of my philosophy and my vision, I stand ready to 
respond to the Committee's questions or issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What factors do you think 
contribute to the Board's keeping almost twice as many wards 
until their available confinement time actually runs out? 

MR. HERRON: There are several factors. 

First of all, I want to state, Senator, that the 
philosophy of the Youthful Offender Parole Board is to attempt 

parole wards prior to the expiration of their available 
confinement time. 


MR. HERRON: Because the Board's feeling is, or 
my feeling is, that the quicker you can get that kids back into 
the community, the easier it will be for him to transition from 
that institutional setting into the community. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you also have, it gives the 
parole officers some -- 

MR. HERRON: Secondly, it gives the parole 
officer some leverage so that the kid knows that if he fails, 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then why less paroles and more 
full-time? It seems to run contrary to the first part, and 
contrary to the second, even to the second part, where there's 
no leverage. 

And the kid, they know if they screw up, even 
technically, you know, they're going to go back. Or, if they do 
full time, they're out, and then they really have to do 


something real bad. 

MR. HERRON: And I can see that as a problem, and 
I see that almost on a daily basis, to the point where kids are 
coming in and demanding that you max their time out. 

I think what I would point out, the idea in 
returning the ward to the community in an expeditious manner is 
so that he is able to take advantage of the services that the 16 
parole offices in California have to offer. 


MR. HERRON: Sixteen parole offices — 


MR. HERRON: One-six, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No wonder you keep them all in. 

MR. HERRON: Pardon me? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's 16 youth parole 
officers for whole state? 

MR. HERRON: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the caseload? Is it 
running 6,000? 

MR. HERRON: I don't know, sir, what the caseload 
is . 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I think that's offices. 
Sixteen offices. 

MR. HERRON: Yes, 16 offices. I'm sorry.; what 
did you think I said? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I thought you said parole 

MR. HERRON: No, offices. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: In the last three years, you've 
doubled the amount of wards, you know, who stay until the end. 
Do you have anything to attribute that to? 

MR. HERRON: Some of that is what was discussed 
earlier relative to DDMS based on negligent behavior within the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, they weren't 
doing it before? 

MR. HERRON: Some of it is by choice, sir, by the 
choice of the ward. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There is a small percentage 
that choose to stay in so they don't have to deal with parole. 

MR. HERRON: That's correct. There is a 
percentage . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: According to, you know, what 
we've seen through investigation, that doesn't account for a big 
piece. There's some, but it's not like a big piece. 

It's difficult for me to believe that, all of a 
sudden now, there's more -- if you can call them kids -- messing 
up in the Youth Authority today than there were three years ago. 
I mean, certainly not twice as many. 

I'd almost like to see what it's been the last 
year since the new members of the Board have been there. 

So, no reason that you should, except, I guess, 
you're the guys adding the time, but you wouldn't know, you have 
no idea why it's twice as many in the last three years as it was 

MR. HERRON: No, I don't, sir. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who would know that? That goes 
against what you're talking about. I mean, if you have 
basically gang bangers who don't want to be bothered with parole 
because, I guess, if they're on parole, they can't hang out with 
their buddies. If they're straight out, they can go back, and 
as long as they don't do something, they're okay. 

Yet, what the Board's doing is defeating that 
thing of giving some after-care supervision, if you will, for 
the kids when they get out. 

MR. HERRON: Relative to the after-care 
supervision, I want to make a differentiation -- I want to spell 
out a difference. 

There is ACT, which we've discussed at length. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you know what that means; 

MR. HERRON: Available, sir, confinement time. 


MR. HERRON: Available confinement time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It ain't the sentence. It's 
the most they can serve. 

MR. HERRON: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the Board seems to think 
it's what's supposed to be served. 

MR. HERRON: That's not correct, sir. That's not 
the policy of the Board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The figures indicate that it 
may not be 100 percent policy, but it's a lot of it. 

Again, back to if you let them out with parole 


me, they're going to -- it would seem to me there would either 
be more intense, or at least more leverage in the after-care, so 
to speak, than if they're out with nothing to lose. 

MR. HERRON: That's right. I agree. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But yet, if not the policy, 
which think it's got to be the policy because it's twice as 
much, at least what's happening to the figures goes against that 
philosophy of getting them out there with some leverage on them 
to at least behave for a while. 

In theory maybe the first 30 or 60 days out of an 
institution may be the toughest to stay away from old haunts and 
bad friends, or whatever it is. And if they know they've got to 
do that or they're going back in, they may give them 60 or 90 
days at least on the right road. And then they may turn left 

MR. HERRON: Again, I'll state that the policy of 
the Board is, when possible, is to release the child from the 
institution -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When is it impossible? 

MR. HERRON: It's impossible if the child is a 
threat to the public safety or to the community that he's going 
to be paroled back to. 

It's impossible, for example, Senator, if you 
have somebody that's gang banging, and he comes to his parole 
consideration hearing, and you know that he's an active gang 
banger based on his record while he's been within the Youth 
Authority. Then his parole plans say, "Release him back to the 
community where he's failed so miserably, where he's surrounded 


by gangs from whence he came. That's when he's a threat to the 
community. He's exhibited through -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, he's been a gang banger 
out, he's been a gang banger in. If he's a gang banger in, 
whether you let him out earlier, you let him out at the maximum 
time, he's going back to be gang banger, but at least you 
haven't done it. 

MR. HERRON: But in the interest, sir, of public 

safety -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand. 

MR. HERRON: -- it would be wrong for me to grant 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: At least you haven't done it. 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. I have not. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. 

MR. HERRON: Public safety, it would be the 
overriding concern of keeping the child to his ACT. Example, if 
a child is up for a parole consideration hearing, and he has not 
yet completed his high school diploma. or GED, that can be made a 
special condition of parole. That should not keep the child 
within the institution. He can go out into the community. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does it keep him in? It 
shouldn ' t . 

MR. HERRON: No, it doesn't. I have not kept a 
child in the institution. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You've got 100 percent -- and 
by you, I mean generically -- there's 100 percent increase of 
people doing the maximum. 


It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, in fact, in 
some respects, and having served on the Public Safety Committee 
too many years, that five, six, and seven years ago there seemed 
to be a lot more activity, shall we say, than present. So, it 
doesn't seem like -- I still don't understand why there's a 100 
percent increase in the maximum time. 

And again, both you and Mr. Hart, and he said 
that was just, you know, a misnomer or something, in terms. But 
when you talked about ACT, it was actual. Which said to us, 
until the explanation, you thought actual meant they give you 
that, that's the sentence. 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And so, that was just — 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just idle curiosity, I assume 
that people at the Board or someone, like they do for us here, 
help prepare answers or something? 

When people write the same answer, use the same 
phrase, it always makes me think that some bureaucrat's helping 
them. What you find is, it showed their mind set. I guess 
not. Just both independently came to actual instead of 
available . 

MR. HERRON: And those terms have been used 
interchangeably. But to me, available confinement time — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Used interchangeably by whom? 

MR. HERRON: -- is that amount of time that is 
available, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Used interchangeably by whom? 


MR. HERRON: I've heard people use it as actual. 
I've heard people use it as available. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: People at CYA and staff at the 
Board, which maybe tells us why things are screwed up? Because 
they aren't interchangeable. 

MR. HERRON: You're correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If people are using them, it 
just shows the mind set that they think, and I mean, it's clear 
that both you and Mr. Hart understand the difference. But it's 
like, you know -- and you've been here -- listening to the 
results of bar exam so you'll know the answers when you come up. 
It would seem it shows a mind set somewhere if the people are 
using that, because that's not what it means. 

And maybe we ought to pass a bill that takes away 
"available" and says "maximum possible, " and then nobody could 
mistake it. 

MR. HERRON: I understand. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Again, you and Mr. Hart just 
happened to be the first ones either out of the barrel or in the 
barrel, because we have been very unhappy over the years with 
this Board, very unhappy with the Youth Authority. And all we 
ever get is, "It's getting better," and "we're doing this," and 
"trust me." So, it concerns us. 

The only answer to the 100 percent increase is if 
there's more trouble. 

A couple questions that we asked Mr. Hart, have 
you ever reviewed the programs that are available to see if they 
work or anything? 


MR. HERRON: Yes, sir. I have visited — I have 
visited the special education program and went to lodge at the 
northern clinic. I have visited the sex offender group home, 
Pete's Group Home. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the special ed. program? 

MR. HERRON: On Win II Lodge, I visited it — 


MR. HERRON: -- and spoke with the teacher. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is the special ed. 

MR. HERRON: For students who are identified who 
need special educational services. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is it the same type of special 
ed. as like in the public school, so to speak? 

MR. HERRON: I think it ' s a bit more intense in 
Win II Lodge, sir. Quite a bit more intense than in the public 

I visited Pete's Group Home, which is a sex 
offender group home, the only one in western Sacramento. I 
visited with the owner and his wife there who run the group 
home. I was very impressed -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's a group home. That's 
not in a CYA facility. 

MR. HERRON: No, it's an after-care program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm talking about the ones, 
again, where -- and we went through this list -- where you 
assign somebody to voc. ed, and there's no room, and the CYA 
doesn't even tell you there's no room. 


Have you had a chance to review the programs that 
are within the CYA that are the programs that, if the guy 
doesn't finish them, he gets added time sometimes? 

MR. HERRON: I have also visited the Mountain 
Public Service Program within the CYA. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which one's that, sir? 

MR. HERRON: Mountain Public Service volunteer 
program. These are the kids that go out to the different 
counties throughout California. Their primary job is to help in 
searches for people who are lost, like in the wilderness, and 
that sort of thing. They teach them grid searches. They teach 
them team work. They teach them that sort of thing. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would assume they are the, 
shall we say, the nicest of the kids. They're not the hard core 
gang bangers, go out on searches, and then the next thing you 
know, they'll be searching for them. 

MR. HERRON: I don't think so, Senator. I don't 
think they're the hard core gang bangers that you would take out 
into the wilderness. 

I've also visited the parole violator drug 
program, the new one at Dewitt Nelson. It's a four-month 
program currently. There's seven people in their third week. 
There's four people on orientation at Lassen Hall at Dewitt 

I must say one thing about that, and you hear a 
lot to the contrary. But when I was there, I spoke with the 
program coordinator, who was Mr. Angeles, I do believe his name 
was, and a youth correctional counselor. And they were spending 


quite a bit of time with the kids in orientation. And in 
talking to the wards who were waiting or in the orientation, 
they were impressed that they were actually being focused upon, 
and staff was talking to them, and they were having an exchange. 
So, they were looking forward to it. 

These kids were from Southern California. I did 
not see any kids from Northern California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As I think you heard, we're 
going to be sending you a copy of the IG's report, which 
basically shows you there, under the best of circumstances, 
you've kind of got a very difficult job because you're trying to 
send kids to programs that, for many of them, they exist but 
they don't exist because they can't get with them. 

And then, it would seem to me that you want to 
send somebody to a program, and they think, "Well, gee, maybe I 
can do something. This will me." And then they've got to wait 
six or seven months to get in the program. Probably isn't good 
for their morale and isn't good for their behavior, and isn't 
any good for the system. That may be one of the reasons why, 
all of a sudden, they got into a fight with the guy next door 
and got another four most. I don't know. 

It would just seem to me, if there 're no programs 
available, you ought to figure something. And my big thing, 
again, is formal substance abuse, five meetings a week, 
hour-and-a-half a day. It's not much. Not much at all. 

I'll bet this thing would be very interesting for 
you all to read because it just kind of tells you, there ain't a 
hell of a lot of intensive treatment here, whether it's anger 


management . 

The only thing is, they've got informal substance 
abuse more than formal. They do ten meetings a week. And voc. 
training, they do ten hours a week. Domestic violence, they do 
one hour a week. That's really helpful. The murder group, I 
guess, 187, two hours a week; pre- parole they do five, which is 

I mean, again, this isn't your problem. But the 
more I look at this, the more we're just going to have to do 
something with the Youth Authority or blow it up, because they 
just don't have a concept of how to intensify these programs. 
Somebody gets something at 10:00 o'clock on Monday, and by 10:00 
o'clock on Tuesday, it's gone right out their head. And if 
you're going to be in these programs that are trying to change 
your mind set, you don't do it on a sort of casual like 
English-A basis. You do it with intensive stuff. 

And if they're doing basically victim awareness, 
which is 14 weeks, so they do 5 a week, which at least that's 
doing some. 

But I mean, they just really ought to put the 
stuff in full-bore, and I don't know what authority you have. 
But when they come to you with stuff, and they come to you with 
the recommendation about some kid should get extra time, why 
don't you just ask them, "Did you ever put them in the program 
they were supposed to get put in," and "He's still angry? What 

Well, he's had three whole hours, after waiting 
six weeks or six months to get into it. He ' d be more God damn 


ana they let him alone. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


This is a seven-member board; there's two 
vacancies. If one member doesn't show up, in terms of voting 
is it a majority of the composition of the board to move 
something forward, or is it a majority of those present and 
voting? What is it? 

MR. HERRON: It takes four of the seven. It ' s a 

SENATOR ROMERO: It takes a quorum. So, if one 
member doesn't show, all four members there, then, you have to 
be in agreement in order to move something forward. 

MR. HERRON: There are five of us. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Right, but I'm asking if one 
person's absent, the remaining four -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If one's absent, and it ' s a 
three-to-one vote, what happens? 

MR. HERRON: Then it doesn't go forward. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Has this happened frequently? Is 
this a problem with the vacancies. 

MR. HERRON: Not to my knowledge. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Let me ask you as well to 
comment on the absence of the transitional group program for 
female wards? What are your observations as to why this has not 
yet been implemented or developed for female wards? 


MR. HERRON: Let me preface it by saying I'm the 
northern Board member, and so therefore, I stay north. And I 
haven't conducted any hearings in the southern part of the 
state, being the only northern member. 

In the southern part of the state are where the 
female wards are. 

SENATOR ROMERO: So, the female wards are only 
housed in Southern California? 

MR. HERRON: In Ventura. 

But my thought, if you will -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So a female ward from 
Sacramento ends up in Ventura? 

MR. HERRON: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Close to home. Good for 
everyone . 

MR. HERRON: My thought is, and I concur with 
what Mr. Wyatt -- Mr. Wyatt Hart's observation, that there 
should be more employability programs. My understanding is, 
the programs that are available consist of programs such as dog 
grooming, and I believe housekeeping. 

Whereas, on the male side out of Dewitt Nelson, 
you have auto painting, auto mechanics. You have computer 
skills. You have just a host of employability skill classes 
that are focused on the male portion of the population. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was that doll grooming? 

SENATOR ROMERO: I thought I heard dog grooming, 
d-o-g . 

MR. HERRON: That's my understanding. But again, 


like I say, I have never been south, Southern California. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Secretarial classes they have, 
too, but they need a lot more. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Let me just ask again, I noticed 
on the list of programs, there's one program called Relating to 
Females Program. 


SENATOR ROMERO: Can you describe that, what that 
is? The intent and purpose, and who goes? 

MR. HERRON: Short and brief and to the point, 
it's a class that addresses how males view females as objects, 
and how males treat females. And it shows you the proper way 
of understanding what no is, for example, what no means. 
Understanding the proper way of talking to people, females 
specifically, in a respectful manner. It's how to relate to 
females, and it is a big problem. 

Who would go to this class? A guy that is used to 
having his way on the streets. A guy that is a player, if you 
will, that has seven or eight women on the street views women as 
objects. That's what that class is for. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I think there's only 4 3 wards in 
that program right now, in that class. 

MR. HERRON: I wouldn't know. 

SENATOR ROMERO: There's a long waiting list, 
too . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: A guy who's willing to have his 
way, would this be like sex offenders? People who physically 

abuse women? 

MR. HERRON: It can be, yes, sir. It can be. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How would you assign somebody 
to that class if they were not, say, for the want of a better 
word, a spousal abuser, or I guess one of the myriad of sex 
crimes, not necessarily like a predator, but -- 

MR. HERRON: Yes. Through interviewing the ward, 
asking him direct questions about his relationships with 
females, finding out what his values are. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You would ask every male ward 
that, or only ones that came in on a certain charge? 

MR. HERRON: I would ask every one, every single 
one. In order to be consistent, you have to ask every one, 
because you may not pick up on it. You may miss it in your 
interview . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think to just follow up, and 
then Senator Karnette, the question about it takes four votes, 
does it take four votes to deal with extending the term of 
somebody? Or is it just to change Board policy? 

MR. HERRON: I don't think I understand the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. I get in a fight 
with Senator Knight. Whoever it is writes me up, "You ought to 
give this guy another four months." 

Does that take four votes for the Board to give 
me four months? 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. You would then come before 
the Board, depending on your category, be a panel board, which 


is two people, or even a full board, which is three people, or a 
referee board which is one person. You would come up. I would 
ask you, Senator -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who makes the decision? 

MR. HERRON: I do. I do . 


MR. HERRON: I do, depending upon the category. 
If you're a Category IV -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would I ever get a chance to 
see the whole board en bank? How about you guys taking a shot? 
Or, if you have a bad day one day, and I get four months. 

MR. HERRON: It doesn't go before the full board 
en bank, no, sir. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Doesn't it have to be approved 
by anybody, reviewed by anybody? 

MR. HERRON: The investigation is done by — the 
offense occurs in CYA. The investigation is done by CYA. The 
appeal is done by CYA. When that is resolved, then the kid 
comes before the board, be it a panel board, full board, a 
referee board. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wait a minute. 

He comes before who? One guy, two guys, three 
guys, come before a referee, coming before you and Mr. Hart? 
Who is he coming before? 

MR. HERRON: Who is coming before us? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who's making the decision 
that's costing the state a hell of a lot of money to keep 
somebody in an extra six months because they got in a beef with 


some guy because they didn't get the anger management course? 
One person? A referee that we don't even know? A hearing 
officer? Whom? 

MR. HERRON: I do. 


MR. HERRON: Yes, assuming -- if I'm the person 
assigned that day, yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Not a hearing officer? 

MR. HERRON: A hearing officer can, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We don't even know who they 
are. If they can do it, why do we need a board? 

MR. HERRON: That's for DDMS, correct. 


Okay, so a hearing officer can determine so a 
another six months, or whatever? 

MR. HERRON: That's correct, sir, up to one year, 
12 months, up to 12 months on a DDMS. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And there is no appeal from 
this person to the full board? 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. Not to my knowledge. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, what is it that the Board 
does that this guy can't do, this retired annuitant who is 

MR. HERRON: Well -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Board makes the — 

MR. HERRON: In order to comprise a full board -- 
not to comprise a full board. The regulation reads that a board 
member must be one of the three people to sit on a full board. 


A full board, there has to be a board member, is what I'm 
saying. In other words -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Seven of you never sit down 
together and decide anything? 

MR. HERRON: Seven of us do meet on a quarterly 
decide to set policy, to talk to CYA, to express the 
problems that we see that are going on within the CYA that we 
can help resolve. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm just trying to understand 
how it works now. 

Can a hearing officer decide -- how about me? I 
stole a car. They brought me into CYA. I'm not looking at 
seven people; I'm looking at you, or I'm looking at a hearing 
officer. Who am I looking at that decides how much time? 

The judge said up to so much. I go to not seven 
people; I go. There's a hearing officer or you that says anger 
management and drug abuse. 

MR. HERRON: Right. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Board member or hearing 

MR. HERRON: It depends on the category. You may 
see two people if you're a category like IV, III. Those are the 
more serious categories. 

If you're auto theft, let's say you're a Category 
VI, and you come to the clinic. You see one person who may be a 
board member, or who may be a board representative, or who may 
be -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the board 



MR. HERRON: You have seven board members, and 
right now -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Each have a staffer? 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's a board rep? 

MR. HERRON: A board representative is a -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm trying to figure out what 
you guys do. 

MR. HERRON: I understand. I'm trying to explain 
it to you, Senator. 


MR. HERRON: A board rep is -- there are four, I 
guess, with two -- four positions. Two down south; two up 
north. Currently only two positions are filled: one up north, 
one down south. 

They are representatives of the board. They're 
hearing officers. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Is the hearing officer and the 
board representative the same? 

MR. HERRON: No, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Susan Wallace says yes; you say 
no . 

So, there are hearing officers, and then there's 
board reps. 

reps who are hearing officers, and then there are retired 
annuitants who also do hearings. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: The retired annuitants get 
what? They get their pension plus the difference in their 
pension and what the salary would be for a full-time employee? 

I actually do not know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Here comes the expert on 
pensions now. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to 
come back. 

But the board is seven members, as you know, 
Chairman and six members. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who do nothing except they meet 
quarterly and, quote, "set policy for the CYA?" 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: No. Let me try to explain 
this . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they set policy for the CYA? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: No, no. Not for the CYA. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They set policy for themselves? 


But there's a board -- a Chairman and six 
members. And because they can't conduct all these hearings, 
they do 25,000 hearings a year, if you can believe that. So, 
they can't do all that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: So, they have the four 
hearing officers who are civil service. They're civil service 
people, not appointed by the Governor. And even they can't do 
all the hearings. So, that's where they bring in some of the 


retired annuitants to help out. And that's the way they do the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And the retired annuitants are 
hearing officers or what? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Former parole officers, 
former hearing officers, those kinds of people that have 
retired . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand that. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: And they can work, under the 
law, they can work 50 percent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Right, doesn't affect their 
pension. All in all, not a bad deal. 


Then the other thing I think was confusing is, 
you can have one member which is a referee, or you can have a 
member and a hearing officer hearing cases, and it all depends 
on the category of the crime, the seriousness of the crime. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, the guy we didn't want as 
the Director of the CYA is now one of the retired annuitant 
hearing officers, Zermeno? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: I don't think so. I can't 
tell you. I don't know. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Susan, is Zermeno a retired 
annuitant hearing officer? 

on the list. I don't think he's sat for a while. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's great. A guy we didn't 
want running the show is now running people's lives. 


SENATOR ROMERO: Senator, can I ask a question? 

What if there's two of you, and you each have a 
difference of opinion as to whether somebody should get four 
months or not get four months? Are there those discussions and 
discrepancies, and is there a process for review? 

I'm just concerned, and this is kind of on a few 
boards. It's not specific to this board. There are others as 
well that I've heard of. 

But when you just have a shortened panel, I would 
think that there should be some type of maybe a review process 
whereby there would have to be a majority of the board to 
consent to the recommendation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think what happens with the 
Board of Prison Terms, on the rare occasion they ever agree to 
let somebody out, then they force it to go a full board, hoping 
to reverse it. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: In this example here, if 
there's two members, and they don't agree, one's against and 
one's for, the chairman has the final vote. It goes to the 
chairman for review. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who wasn't there to hear 
anything . 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Probably not, but he review 
the file and get recommendations. We'd have to have a bunch of 
chairmen if we had him there at all these hearings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why do sometimes you have two 
and sometimes one? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Category of the crime, 


seriousness of the crime. The more serious the crime, the more 
members hearing the case. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's either one or two; right? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: What is three? That's the 
crime inside the prison; right? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: No, no. Outside. The crime 
that they come in for, what they're committed to the Youth 
Authority for. 

If it's murder, you're going to have three 
members. If it's car theft, you might have one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, I got one guy who's a 
retired annuitant, who couldn't get confirmed as the Director of 
the CYA who's now deciding how much time my nephew's going to 
get for stealing a car; right? 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Remotely possible. I don't 
think the one you're talking about, I don't think he even serves 
any more, as I understand it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, let's assume that when he 
was serving he did. 

What's weird to me is that, you know, here these 
two guys are going through all this grief from this Committee, 
and basically probably the guys we're mad at are three God damn 
retired annuitants we don't even know. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Let's lay it on to them. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, you know the old Sicilian 
saying, where the fish stinks from? From the head. 

Senator Karnette. 


SENATOR KARNETTE: I have no questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Be careful what questions you 
ask. You learn more than you want to know. 

Again, unfortunately, you and Mr. Hart had the 
first turn in the barrel, as they say. 

We are going to be monitoring very closely the 
Board, and even looking at some legislation which takes new 
meaning after these hearings. 

Witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition? 

I'll move the nomination. I always do that after 
I've been exceedingly abrasive. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. HERRON: Thank you. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

2: 30 P.M. ] 

— 00O00-- 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

,, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
-> day of . y '^CU , 2002. 



.4 •< '- 



Shorthand Reporter 

451 -R 
Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 451 -R when ordering. 

L Soo 

ivo. II 





MAY 2 9 : :32 



ROOM 113 


MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2002 
10:12 A.M. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, APRIL 15, 2 02 
10:12 A.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 





California State Lottery Commission 


City of Calabasas 


California State Lottery Commission 

Public Employment Relations Board 

LEE PEARSON, General Vice President 
Western Territory 

International Association of Machinists and 
Aerospace Workers 

MATTHEW R. McKINNON, Executive Secretary-Treasurer 
California Conference of Machinists 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


California State Lottery Commission 1 

Introduction and Support by 


Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Method of Attaining Membership on 

Commission 2 

Reason for Wanting to Be on Commission 2 

Programs for Compulsive Gamblers 3 

Brochures 4 

Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Compulsive Gamblers 4 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Minimum Age to Play Lottery 5 

Purchases by 18-21 Year Olds 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

New Lottery Games 6 

Witness in Support: 


City of Calabasas 7 


Motion to Confirm 8 

Committee Action 9 


California State Lottery Commission 9 

Achievements while on Commission 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Dollar Amounts to Various Entities 9 

Potential Conflict as Governor's 

Advisor on Indian Affairs 12 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Time for All Duties 15 

Time Devoted to Lottery Duties 15 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Initial Position with Governor's Office 16 

Duties of Commission 16 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Minimum Age to Play 17 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Ethics Officer for Governor's Office 17 






Need for Appointees to Comply with 

Letter and Spirit of Law 18 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Commission's Work with Gamblers Anonymous 20 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Brochure on Gambling Problems 2 




Statements by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Authorship of Science Fiction Novel 21 

Motion to Confirm 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Production of Brochure 22 

Committee Action 23 


Public Employment Relations Board 23 

Background and Experience 24 

Goals 25 

Witness in Support : 

LEE PEARSON, General Vice President 

International Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers 26 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Lodge Vs . Union 2 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Number of Board Votes Required 2 8 

Suggestion that Legislature Fill 

Vacancies on Boards and Commissions 2 9 

Appeal to Five -Member Panel 3 

Statements by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Different Voting Requirements for 

Various Boards and Commissions 3 

Need for Study of Commissions and 

Majority Votes 31 


Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Most Common Policy Issues 31 

Need of Local Governments for Assistance in 
Filing Cases 33 

Witness in Support: 


California Conference of Machinists 34 

Motion to Confirm 34 

Committee Action 35 

Termination of Proceedings 35 

Certificate of Reporter 36 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees 
appearing today, Michael Brockman, State Lottery Commission. 

ASSEMBLY MEMBER PAVLEY: Good morning, Senator 
Burton, Members. 

It's a pleasure for me to be here today to 
introduce to you Michael Brockman. For those of you who have 
his resume, he's had a very distinguished career on television. 
He's been a programmer and director of daytime television for 
years for CBS, ABC, and NBC, for Mark Goodson Productions in a 
similar capacity. 

I know Michael Brockman because he's from 
Calabasas, adjacent to Agora Hills. He's been very active in 
the community there, working for cable television, and he's 
served on the Lottery Commission this past nine months. 

Well, I was about finished, but I just wanted to 
share with you, I think he's an excellent appointment. He has a 
lot of background in marketing, believes in education. He's a 
good member, solid member of the community. 

I would appreciate your support for his 
nomination to the Lottery Commission. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go ahead, sir. 

MR. BROCKMAN: Good morning, Chairman Burton, 
Members of the Committee. 

I think Fran has basically given you a good 
background presentation on my experiences. They also include 
the children's program area at the three networks as well, 

responsible for that. And it was that experience that had 
intrigued me about participating in this, since I know a good 
deal of the funds do help go directly to education. 

And the last nine months have been a very 
interesting experience thus far in learning about the complexity 
of this operation and the way it is run, and it's run very well 
by the staff and its director. And I am very pleased so far to 
be an active member of the Commission, and working towards 
seeing that the maximizing of the dollars that we get, getting 
the revenue, and seeing, too, that a good deal of it goes to 
education, which is certainly the primary mission of the act. 

I welcome any questions that any of you wish to 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you apply for the Lottery 
Commission or were you chosen for it, or what? 

MR. BROCKMAN: I was chosen. I was asked to 
participate, you know, to perform. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have, like, a special 
interest in lotteries? 

MR. BROCKMAN: No. The interest on my part was 
because of my professional background in games, and game show 
product development, and scheduling, and the production of them. 
They felt that my background, the entertainment background might 
be a help in the development of the games and the marketing 
efforts of the Commission. 

And then the children's background, helping -- 
seeing that the monies go to education, was an interest of mine. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know whether the Lottery 

Commission pays any attention to the issue of compulsive 
gambling or add addictive gambling? Do you have any programs? 

MR. BROCKMAN: There are -- there is a program 
that has started just about a year ago to address this issue, 
because it's certainly a concern on the part of myself and I 
know my other Commissioners. And there is about $100,000 that 
we have put up towards supporting the effort to try and provide 
information to individuals. 

There's a hotline that's been formed for people 
to call, and if they feel they're in trouble, can get some 
help. And the Director of the Commission has spearheaded this 
effort in bringing not just our own resources to play, but 
bringing the resources of the other gaming institutions around 
the state to participate in a kind of -- collectively, so that 
we address this problem, which is one that I think we have a 
responsibility to try and administer and see if we can provide 
some help. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One hundred thousand dollars 
added a drop in the bucket, so to speak; right? 

MR. BROCKMAN: Well, it does come out of the 
administration pot, and it's a beginning point for us at this 
stage. This, as I said, it's just in the formative stages the 
last year. 

And I must claim ignorance. I don't have the 
exact details of exactly what has taken place thus far, but it 
is certainly an area that I will be doing some further inguiry 
on, on the Commission, and get a little better understanding. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it pays to establish a 


MR. BROCKMAN: I understand it's been beneficial. 
They have had calls, and they have gotten people directed to get 
some help. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they let people know that 
there's a line for them to call? 

MR. BROCKMAN: Yes. There is a brochure. At the 
moment it's misplaced. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's all right. 

MR. BROCKMAN: There is a brochure that is 
provided to the different retailers and it's at the point of 
purchase, the brochures, of what the signs and symptoms are for 
this, and if you want help, this is where you can call. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you know if they are handed 
out with each Lottery purchase? 

MR. BROCKMAN: I don't know that. I don't think 
they are, but I don't know that for that for a fact. 


Senator Johnson. . . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I was going to say I have no 
questions, but I'll just follow up on the Chairman's. 

My feeling is, it doesn't make a damn bit of 
difference, and we'd be far better off educating kids with the 
money than educating compulsive gamblers. 

Compulsive gamblers are going to gamble, whether 
there's a state lottery, whether there are casinos operating in 
California, horse tracks, whatever. They'll find something to 
gamble over, and someone to gamble with. 

So, I think it's less than a finger in the dike. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well if I might? 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Certainly. You've got the 
gavel . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think the thing to addictive 
or compulsive gambling, it isn't like: Don't use the Lottery; 
don't use the Lottery. 

I think it addresses the entire issue of gaming, 
whether it's the Indian gaming, whether it's the tracks, or 
whatever . 

And I think it would be an act of surrender to 
say that there's no way to try to stop people. I mean, no 
reason for people to go to AA. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'll have to concede that it is 
an act of surrender, but I think we should. 

No further guestions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, we shouldn't do anything 
about alcohol or drugs. 

Senator Romero. 


There's been some discussion about at what age we 
should allow the gambling to begin in California. Right now 
it's 18. There's been some discussion about moving it to 21. 

Nationally, how many states allow 18-year-olds to 
gamble? Are we part of the average, or what is it? 

MR. BROCKMAN: I don't know exactly. I don't know 
what the rest of the states' particular limitations are, but I 
would certainly think we're not unigue in that application. 

But I would be certainly happy to have that 
checked out for you, what the percentage is. 

I'm not aware of us being in a rather, as I say, 
unique or distinctive situation with regard to that. I think 
• ' s fairly common. 

SENATOR ROMERO: If you can just give me that 
information, I find it interesting. 

Also as well, is there a disproportionate lottery 
purchase of, say, 18 to 21 year olds? 

MR. BROCKMAN: No. I think there is a fairly 
even spread with regard to the age spread of investments. I 
don't believe there's any emphasis or greater percentage of 
younger people playing than those that are more mature. I don't 
believe there is that kind of specificity. 

SENATOR ROMERO: If you can give me whatever kind 
of data you can, I'd appreciate it. 

I have no other questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions.. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just one final question. 

Have you been able to come up with any new games 
for the Lottery? 

MR. BROCKMAN: Well, the staff is the one that 
does the development of them. Then, as they finesse them, get 
them to the point of where they think they're ready to be 
implemented, they then bring them forth to the Commission. 

I have worked with them a little bit. I'm not at 
the stage yet to be able to do that. I haven't mastered enough 
knowledge in the detail of this, because it's a very different 
orientation than the kind I had. 


MR. BROCKMAN: So, I wouldn't begin to say that 
within these short months, that I have mastered all that I need 
to know to be able to bring that kind of an idea to them. 

We're going to be meeting later this week on some 
new material for the television show, and then we work on an 
ongoing basis on the development of new material. 

It's something that one has to be very, very 
careful in implementation because it's a big investment, so you 
want to make sure you've done all the research. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What was the other guy's name? 
Was it Todman or Todson? 

MR. BROCKMAN: Mark Goodson and Bill Todman were 
the original. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It was Todman-Goodson, or 
Good son -Todman? 

MR. BROCKMAN: Goodson-Todman were the original 
two partners. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I remember it well. 

Witnesses in support. Why don't you come up. 

MAYOR DEVINE: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee, it's a delight to be here. 

My name is Lesley Devine. I'm Mayor of the City 
of Calabasas. We are now to 20,000 population, according to the 

Census. It's really quite an honor for our city to have one of 
our City Commissioners come before you and become a State 

When we were first formed in 1991, that's not 
very old, one of the things we quickly discovered was that we 
had cable franchises and wireless people coming in, and who was 
going to negotiate on behalf of our new city to make sure that 
we got best advantages and the best technology? Michael 
Brockman stepped up to the fore, and he's done a very good job 
for us, also helped with our Cityhood Committee. So, he's a 
very active, steady person in our community. 

And I'm sure, after television, he can learn the 
Lottery. I think he'll be an asset. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any condition in the 
negotiations that whatever cable companies came in had to carry 
his product? 

MAYOR DEVINE: Well, at that point it was already 
Goodson, so what can you say? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 


Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, sir. 

MR. BROCKMAN: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: David Rosenberg. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Good morning, Senators. 

I have no one speaking on my behalf, so I'll just 
say a few words. 

I was here three years ago and enjoyed the 
confirmation of this Committee and the Senate when I was first 
appointed to the Lottery Commission. I am pleased to have 
received letters in support of my confirmation from 
representatives of retailers, business leaders, school finance 
officers, and also from problem gambling advocates. 

I have learned in my three years on the 
Commission that all things in moderation on the Lottery. It is 
a business, but it is also a public agency, and we have certain 
responsibilities . 

Since I've served on the Lottery Commission from 
March of '99 to the present, we have been able to provide $3.1 
billion to education, and also a half billion dollars back to 
the retailers, which I think is significant. 

Last year, the Lottery provided over a billion 
dollars to education. This year we will do the same. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Out of a gross of what? 

MR. ROSENBERG: That's an $8.1 billion of total 
sales during that three-year period. That's the gross. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Okay, eight point what.? 
MR. ROSENBERG: Eight point one total sales. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: How much to education? 
MR. ROSENBERG: Three point one to education 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: That of leaves five. How much 
to the retailers? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Point five. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, that's 4.5 million. Who 

gets that? 

the players 

MR. ROSENBERG: The players; 4.2 billion went to 


MR. ROSENBERG: Four point two. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And 300,000 is what whoever 
they are get? The people who put the Lottery on the ballot had 
to cut themselves in for a piece of something. Where does their 
piece come from? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Those people, I think this was 
before my time, but I think that was Scientific Games. They're 
not in the loop any more. They're no longer a part of that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They made their score how? 

MR. ROSENBERG: They were a contractor with the 
Lottery before my time. They're not a contractor with the 
Lottery at this time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they made theirs and — 

MR. ROSENBERG: The only way that those folks — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who gets the other 300,000? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Let's see, 8.1 billion — 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Eight point one, three point 
one, leaving five; four point five. 

MR. ROSENBERG: The money from the Lottery's only 
divided in the following ways. One to the -- you take the 
gross, and from that you take — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Three point one to the schools. 
That left five million. 

MR. ROSENBERG: You take money to retailers, and 
the players. That leaves you money for operations of the 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the three hundred is for 
operation of the Commission? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Three hundred million, no, that's 
for operation of the Lottery over that three-year period. 
That's correct. It's just under three hundred million for that 
three-year period. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Operating the Lottery, that 
would include the Commission or no? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Well, the Commission -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's got to cost something to 
operate the Commission. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Yeah, exactly. 

The Lottery Act says no more than 16 percent goes 
for administration. The Lottery has been 13.5 percent. Of that 
13.5 percent, Senator, most of it goes to the retailers. 

I think -- I'm trying to respond. 


I never liked it when it went on, and still don't 


like it. As Ken Maddy used to say, probably the worst odds of 
any gaming thing in the world, which isn't your fault, of 
course; is it? 

MR. ROSENBERG: I hope not, Senator. I just try 
to follow the law. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's been an issue raised 
about potential conflict between you as a Lottery Commissioner 
and as the Governor's Indian gaming advisor. 

Will you still be or are you his advisor on 
Indian gaming? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you negotiate contracts? 

MR. ROSENBERG: At the Lottery? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, no, with Indians. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you do? 

MR. ROSENBERG: I advise him on tribal gaming 
issues . 

And of course, there's no conflict. I've 
certainly seen no conflict, Senator. The Lottery doesn't 
operate on Indian lands, and I just have seen no conflict. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, some of the tribes are 
concerned of a potential conflict. I don't know what that would 
be either. 

When you advise the Governor, what kind of 

MR. ROSENBERG: Well, for example, there are 
issues that come up. There are legal issues that come up 


relating to Indian lands. For example, they may want to add 
land to trust. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Doesn't what's his name do 

MR. ROSENBERG: The Attorney General? 


MR. ROSENBERG: Barry Good is the Governor's 
legal advisor. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't he give him that 

MR. ROSENBERG: I advise on policy issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you tell him whether he 
should or shouldn't, and Barry just tells him whether it's legal 
or not legal? 

MR. ROSENBERG: In the simplest form, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, the Governor's legal 
advisor gives him no policy advice? It's just, the law says you 
can't go over 55? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Senator, I can't say that the 
legal advisor doesn't give policy advice, but we've divided it 
in a sense that Shelly Ann Chang in the Governor's legal office 
is our expert on Indian -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And so, she tells you what the 
law is, and you tell him? I'm just trying to understand. You 
tell him, "Don't let them, you know, get property in trust," or 

MR. ROSENBERG: Well, there are issues relating 
to what the community feels, you know, the surrounding 


communi: I try to get input on that. There are environmental 
issues. There are issues relating what they want to use the 
land for. I'm just giving you an example kind of thing that I 
might be called upon. 

I meet with Indian tribal leaders almost every 
two days. I'm their point of contact. So, there's lots of 
issues they want to discuss relating to -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, if an Indian tribe -- 
gaming or non-gaming? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Both. All 108 federally 
recognized Indian tribes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And you meet with them on 
issues. You would meet with the non-gaming tribe on an issue 
not related to gaming? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Absolutely. I've talked to 
tribes about health issues. I've talked to tribal leaders about 
power plant issues. There's some tribal land — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about, remember the garbage 
dump issue? 

MR. ROSENBERG: In San Diego, yeah. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did that end up getting vetoed? 

MR. ROSENBERG: That just preceded my involvement 
in the Indian -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you didn't recommend up, 

MR. ROSENBERG: I didn't recommend. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who was doing what you're doing 
before you were doing it then? That wasn't that long ago. That 


was just the end of last session. 

MR. ROSENBERG: I think it was a mixture of 
people, primarily Tal Finney was involved. I kind of took over 
that operation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Some say he might be a policy 

Senator Johnson. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: How do you find time to do all 
this stuff? You're an elected public official? 

MR. ROSENBERG: I am, sir. You've got to carry 
your calendar with you at all times, and you've got to be highly 
organized . 

You know, I haven't gotten that sophisticated. I 
just have -- if I ever lose this, I'm in deep trouble, Senator. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: How much time would you say you 
devote to your position with the Lottery versus your other 
responsibilities, and you maintain a private practice of law as 

MR. ROSENBERG: No, no, sir. I gave up my 
private practice of law when I assumed a position with the 
Governor's office. 

But when I -- when I was first appointed to the 
Lottery Commission in '99, I put in more time that first year 
than I do now because at that point, we didn't have a director. 
We do now with Joe Wilson. And so, I found myself much more 
involved and engaged in the day-to-day operations simply because 
we didn't have a director. 


Since we got a director, I've been less engaged 
in the day-to-day operations, but I'm always available to the 
:y to deal with policy issues and answer those questions. 

It's hard to give you a specific time. Some 
weeks are more than others. Obviously, when we have a Lottery 
Commission meeting coming up, that takes a lot of time. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Initially you were the 
intergovernmental guy; right? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Still am. My official title is 
Community and Intergovernmental Relations. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And then your unofficial title 
is Lottery Commissioner, and then your un-unof f icial title is 
policy consultant on tribal matters. Well, we could consider 
that intergovernmental; couldn't we? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, we can. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As long as we're into this, and 
then I go to Senator Romero, what does the Lottery Commission 

MR. ROSENBERG: Makes the decisions on the 
operation of the Lottery because -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have, like, have 
three-to-two votes, or is it always -- 

MR. ROSENBERG: We have had a rare — since I've 
been on the Commission, rarely have we had split votes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, they could almost do it 
with an executive director? 



[Laughter . ] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm just trying to ease your 


MR. ROSENBERG: No, the unigue thing — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Again, a similar guestion. What 
thoughts do you have on the guestion about age? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Well, my understanding is that 
there are 38 states that have lotteries in the United States. I 
believe all of them, if not all of them, virtually all of them 
have gaming at the age of majority, which is 18. 

I have no particular feelings one way or the 
other about whether it should be 18, or 19, or 21. 

I will tell you that we have very few players in 
the 18 through 21 age group. Statistically, it's our lowest age 
category of players. And I think the next lowest is like 21 to 

Most of the players we have tend to be in their 
30s and 40s. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: It's just been brought to my 
attention . 

You have among the other many hats you wear, are 
you the ethics officer in the office of the Governor? ■ 

MR. ROSENBERG: I see my time is up. 
[Laughter . ] 

MR. ROSENBERG: No, this is a rather new 
responsibility I've assumed, Senator. I've assumed this 


responsibility just about three, or four, or five months ago. 

We're trying to be a lot more proactive in 
reviewing Form 700s, and that's what I do. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I can't pass up 
the opportunity. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would be surprised if you 

SENATOR JOHNSON: We see, I see, a fairly 
consistent pattern of nominees of the Governor's office who come 
before us who, on the record, indicate that they haven't been 
advised. Often they indicate they haven't been advised of the 
letter of the law with respect to reporting requirements, and 
consistently indicate that they haven't been advised of the 
spirit of the law. 

Again, I recognize you wear a lot of hats, but it 
seems to me that there is a crying need in the Governor's office 
to sit down with people, not only and say, "Here's the forms you 
have to fill out, and here are the deadlines by which you have 
fill them out, and make sure you have this filed on time," but 
what the underlying purpose of the law is in order to avoid the 
possibility or appearance of a conflict of interest. 

I'd like to have your thoughts on that, as long 

as -- 

here . 

MR. ROSENBERG: I agree with you, Senator. . 
SENATOR JOHNSON: — as long as we're gathered 

MR. ROSENBERG: Senator, I agree with you. 

I think this Governor and all future governors 


have to be a lot more proactive in dealing with potential 
appointees on boards and commissions and in offices. That 
certainly is the intent. 

So, the short answer is, I agree with you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd just like to congratulate 
you, so that you know, that the many questions you have asked on 
this issue, that the administration has responded with an 
appointment . 

And I think that probably Friday afternoons 
between three and five, you're able to pay attention to this. 

How much money do they pay you? Do they pay you 
much money? 

MR. ROSENBERG: I took a pay cut to take these 
jobs . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, but you were making big 
money before you took this one, as I recall. 

MR. ROSENBERG: In private practice, sure, yeah. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're sort of like, you're 
really the utility infielder down there; aren't you? 

MR. ROSENBERG: That's what the Governor's called, 
me before. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Has he? See, that's why we get 
along so good. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I just would offer the 
observation that when the Fair Political Practices Commission is 
fining the Department of Water Resources rather than the 
individuals involved in failing to comply with the requirements 
of the reporting law, that we've got a long, long way to go in 


of communicating to appointees, or communicating .to people 
who are hired to negotiate contracts for the State of 
California. And again, not just with compliance with the letter 
of the law, but the spirit of the law as well. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I just have one question. 

Isn't there a Gamblers Anonymous? 

MR. ROSENBERG: Yes, there is. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Do you have any contact with 
them, or do they ever contact the board or anything to help with 
their situation? 

MR. ROSENBERG: We have — we worked with a 
gamblers association. Tom Tucker is President of that 
association. And we've entered into an agreement. 

By the way, on that hotline, this was an issue 
that you raised when I was here three years ago. And that's 
something I've really tried to concentrate on. 

We print the number of our hotline on the back of 
our Scratchers tickets. And I've called that hotline, and you 
get a human being. You don't get a recording. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd just like to say, whoever 
okayed this brochure had never been involved in a political 
campaign. It's kind of cute, then you try to read this part, 
which is very small print and which is white on purple, and then 
this, and then down there. 

They ought to do it like this. At least you can 
read it. 


MR. ROSENBERG: I've been there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, you've been there. And 
you really ought to have them do the brochure kind of simple, 
kind of easy to see, because it's very pretty and would probably 
win an award somewhere, but somebody who takes it out and looks 
at it gets blurry, and they throw it away. 

MR. ROSENBERG: We'll send you the new brochure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, you wouldn't send this 
out if you were running for the City Council in Davis, or if you 
did, you wouldn't get elected to the City Council in Davis. 

Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I'd like to make a comment, 
something interesting. 

I was looking at publications. One of your 
publications is a full-length science fiction novel in 1986. My 
question is, your experience in science fiction, is that applied 
at all to the Lottery? 

MR. ROSENBERG: My experience in science fiction 
applies to almost every day of my life. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Good. I knew that I liked 
you . 

MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Senator. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I also knew you before, and it 
amazes me, all the things that you can do. I need to take 
lessons, I think. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Very kind of you. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Maybe adapt some of those 
science fiction techniques. I'd like to learn them. 


MR. ROSENBERG: I think I wrote the novel only to 
see if I could do it. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You sound like one of the 

[Laughter . ] 
MR. ROSENBERG: The characters were mostly 
robots, actually. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family with 

MR. ROSENBERG: No, no members of the family are 
with me today. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in support? Any 
witnesses in opposition? 

Move the nomination. 

Do something about this. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Guaranteed, you'll be getting the 
new brochure. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But I mean, when you looked at 
it, did you -- 

MR. ROSENBERG: I did not review and approve that 
brochure . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: See? They give you too much to 
do. This is your primary duty. 

MR. ROSENBERG: We approve — maybe you're right. 
We approve business plans, and budgets, and new games, and 
contracts, but we did not review the brochure, but we will. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did they contract out for 



MR. ROSENBERG: I honestly don't know. 

Was that contracted out, or was that in-house? 

[FROM THE AUDIENCE]: It was in-house. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Sorry to say it was in-house. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I know eight political 
consultants that would do it for nothing, just to say they did 

Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. ROSENBERG: Thank you, Senators. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Ted Neima, Member of PERB . 

MR. NEIMA: Thank you, Senator Burton, Chairman, 
and Members of the Committee. 

I have with me as a witnesses to speak in my 
behalf after my presentation, if that's acceptable, General Vice 
President Lee Pearson, of the Machinists and Aerospace Workers 




MR. NEIMA: I have a brief opening statement. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think just for the record 
you'll want to identify yourself. 

MR. NEIMA: My name is Theodore G. Neima. I'm a 
member of the Public Employment Relations Board, appointed in 
August of last year. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
the Committee regarding my appointment by Governor Gray Davis. 

Prior to my appointment, I served for 27 years as 
an officer and representative of the International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. And for almost a decade 
before my appointment, my responsibility was the handling of our 
National Labor Relations Board cases, Federal Labor Relations 
Authority cases, and State Labor Relations Authority cases in 
the Western United States. 

Since my appointment last year, I've been 
privileged to work with a talented staff at PERB, many of who've 
been with the Board since it was created 25 years ago. 

Last October, I was elected by my colleagues to 
serve as their acting Administrative Chair. 

Since its establishment 26 years ago, PERB has 
expanded from public school employees, kindergarten through 
twelve, to now include higher education employees, state 
employees, and with the passage of Senate Bill 739, now 
employers and employees in cities, counties, and special 
districts . 


PERB's immediate challenge is to fulfill the 
responsibility under that act, and to handle the increased 
workload of approximately 5,000 new employers and estimates of 
between 650,000 and 850,000 employees coming aboard. We're 
making adjustments to do that, doing several things, both in 
staffing, facility, and technological improvement. 

Our first priority is to improve and to maintain 
PERB's core of highly skilled administrative law judges. To do 
that, we did receive the approval of the administration, 
Personnel Administration, to develop a new testing procedure. 
We developed an elite list of administrative law judges. We 
have all ready promoted one person in-house who scored top in 
that examination to administrative law judge. We are holding 
interviews in Los Angeles later this month to fill our second 
vacancy and to maintain what PERB has always prided itself on, 
which is a very elite core of administrative law judges to 
handle the evaluation of the statutes. 

A second area to gain efficiency, in the Bay 
Area, we have for sometime, PERB's offices have been in two 
separate areas of the Elihu Harris Building in Oakland on space 
loaned by the Legislature. We are now finalizing a new lease 
for an integrated facility in Oakland where all of our staff 
will be able to be far more efficient in that operation. 

Third, we have recently received at unanimous 
recommendation of the Board the promotion of our Deputy General 
Counsel to become General Counsel, and has been appointed 
General Counsel of PERB, Robert Thompson. With that, we believe 
that we'll have more direction over the efforts of the General 


Counsel's office and PERB. 

And finally, I would just like to mention 
technology. Technology and case processing is a very important 
element with us. We have what we call PERB Central, which is 
our document assembly system. That is going through another 
revision right now. 

We're also doing our utmost now to bring all 
cases historically on line for public access so that people, our 
constituents, both employers, employee organizations, employees, 
will have a better understanding of what our PERB precedent is 
so that disputes can be resolved earlier. 

I believe in this area, the Board needs to be 
more visible, needs to do more outreach. I believe we're 
developing a consensus on that, because I believe that if we can 
get better filed issues coming before the Board, then the 
product all the way up through the line, through our regional 
attorneys, through our administrative law judges, will bring a 
better product, a clearer product, to the Board if decisions 
need to be rendered. 

I appreciate the opportunity, Senator, and I'm 
glad to' answer any questions that you may have or the Members of 
the Committee. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't we hear from the 



MR. PEARSON: Thank you, Senator Burton, 

My name is Lee Pearson. I'm the General Vice 
President for the International Association of Machinists and 


Aerospace Workers. Our office is in Folsom, California. 

Ted's career in labor relations has developed 
primarily through his position as an International 
representative for our union. Between 1979 and 2001, Ted's 
worked in various capacities as an International representative 
for the Machinists Union. 

In 1992, I assigned Mr. Neima overall 
responsibilities for the handling of IM cases, proceedings, 
before the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority, and various state employment relations 
boards such as PERB. These are all taking place throughout the 
13 western states. 

In this arena, he developed improved, more 
efficient guidelines for case handling, thereby facilitating 
more frequent settlement of employer-employee issues. 

I've known Ted for over 25 years, and I can 
wholeheartedly recommend his confirmation to the PERB Board. 

Thank you. 


Just one question, which I've always wanted to 
ask and never did. Why are machinists on the always a lodge and 
not a local, going back a long time? 

MR. PEARSON: Going back since our founding over 
114 years ago. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was it like a fraternal 
organization first? 

MR. PEARSON: It was originally developed after 
the Masonic Lodge. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: What does it take to do 
something on the Board? Does it take three or two? 

MR. NEIMA: It takes -- there are three members 
paneled on two separate paneling schedules. One is our 
injunctive relief rotation. The second one is our case 
rotation. There are always three members on those panels. And 
you need two of three votes. The authorship rotates. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The reason I'm asking this, 
along with other things, there's three members and two 
vacancies . 

MR. NEIMA: That is correct, sir. All of our 
actions require three members. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But they don't require three 
votes. Do you require three votes or three members? 

MR. NEIMA: We require three votes of at least 
three members. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, if there's any 
disagreement, nothing happens? 

MR. NEIMA: Well, the votes would be two-zip or 
one way or the other, or three-zero -- excuse me, two-to-one, 
one-to-two, or a combination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If it's two-to-one, in other 
words, that suffices? 

MR. NEIMA: That would suffice. 

Of course, in creating the law, when our 
constituents, if I may answer a little more fully, obviously 
what constituents, whether they're employees or employer 
organizations, are always looking for is clarity in the law. 


And to the extent possible, boards such as ours that are quasi- 
judicial, try to give clarity in the law and, where possible, 
three decisions that are three-person unanimous decisions always 
help give better guidance. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You could have a two-to-one 
vote, and you get two more members, and it becomes a 
three-to-two vote in theory. 

There's an issue, whatever it is. And so, either 
the worker, or management, or somebody sustained two-to-one. 
Then there are two new appointees. In theory, the two new ones 
could vote with the minority and overturn, in other words, 
reconsider something and overturn the thing. 

I guess the point I'm making, which isn't your 
fault, but I wish, you might let him know that he ought to fill 
these things. I mean, a one hundred and whatever a year, there 
must be a lot of people waiting to get one. I could think of a 
couple myself. 

In fact, I'm thinking we really ought to put a 
statute in that if there's vacancies for more than whatever, a 
year, that the Legislature fills them. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I was going to make exactly the 
same point. In the entire time that this Governor's been in 
office, there have been consistently at least two vacancies. I 
mean, it's not same the vacancies, but it's just a constant 
churning. So, it's never been more than three in the time that 
this Governor has been in office. 

I believe it's $114,000 a year. 


I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we 
ought to amend the law and do away with it, but I actually like 
your suggestion a lot better, Mr. Chairman. Makes a lot of 
sense to me. 

MR. NEIMA: Just so I'm being clear and making 
sure that I did not misspeak, if we had four members or five 
members, they would still be paneled to a three-person panel. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But then doesn't somebody get 
to appeal to the full five? 

MR. NEIMA: It can -- you can. Not only may they 
appeal, I believe, to the full Board, which I haven't heard of 
in the last several years. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How the hell can they? You've 
only got three people. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: They'd be appealing the 
decision to the people who made the decision from which they're 
appealing . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is not your beef. 

Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Let me continue on the beef 

It seems that we hear all these different 
commissions. They have different voting requirements. Some of 
them don't even take a majority vote in order to get actions 

I'm wondering if at some point we can just for 
ourselves get a breakdown of the different commissions. To me, 
I would hope that we'd go into a majority vote. To me that 


matters. It should be fifty percent plus one. 

And the last meeting we had, it takes one person, 
and two people. It sounds have disorganized. 

I'm hoping at some point, perhaps, we could have 
that information brought to us and really do a study of our 
commissions, and I hope, get to that fifty percent plus one. 

That's all I have to say. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Since your appointment to 
PERB, what are the significant policy issues that seem to come 
up all the time? Are there any ones that just are -- 

MR. NEIMA: I would say, without talking about 
specific cases, but the last point I mentioned, I think, is very 
important when I talked about outreach. What I have seen, I 
believe culturally, in my opinion, the Board has resisted -- not 
the Board itself, but the culture of the Board has not done as 
much outreach in the past, so in what employers or employee 
organizations are filing cases, there's enough assistance to 
them in properly framing their case. 

The results of that, Senator, in one person's 
opinion, one Board member's opinion is, that when the decision 
-- when the case is investigated by, for example, a regional 
attorney, or it comes before an administrative law judge, the 
summary of that case, as it comes to the Board member, the file 
I get, you have these inconsistencies between the write up, and 
what was filed actually because the filing was imperfect in many 


cases. It wasn't -- they didn't have a full understanding of 
the law, the procedures before the Board in filing their case. 

And so then, a professional comes out with a 
response. Well, when it comes a Board member, and there's three 
separate Board members independently looking at this file, we're 
not allowed, of course, because we're subject to the canons of 
judicial conduct to some extent, we don't -- we can't call the 
administrative law judge and say, or the person, the regional 
attorney who investigated and say, well, the facts of the case 
as set forth by the Petitioner was say A, but the way you've 
written it up, there's this inconsistency; it's slightly 
different, and why have you written it differently? Why is it 

And to the best of my ability so far, I believe 
that a little better outreach by the Board, a little more 
assistance to the parties, more brochures, for example. 

One of the things we just developed was a new 
brochure, which is the first one I've seen at the Board. There 
may have been some 10 or 15 or 20 years .ago, but recently, that 
actually summarizes what we do, and actually summarizes, the 
statutes passed by this Legislature, and what they're intended 
to do . 

I believe with a little bit of outreach, better 
visibility, we can get better case handling before the Board and 
earlier settlement of disputes. 

It may sound a little abstract, but from my 
tangibly handling of cases so far, I believe we can render 
clearer, better, quicker decisions if we can give them more help 


from the get-go on filing. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Do the local governments, 
would they be the ones that would need the most help because 
they're the newest ones in the mix? 

MR. NEIMA: Yes, I believe both local government 
employers, meaning cities, counties, special districts, and the 
local government employee organizations. 

We have been making an outreach to both of those 
constituencies, saying, "Look, if you would like our assistance, 
if you would like some training, our staff, our General Counsel, 
and others have been making presentations," and I believe that 
has to be continued and strengthened. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: That would avoid a lot of 
problems, possibly -- 

MR. NEIMA: Yes, it would. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: — in the collective 
bargaining aspect? 

MR. NEIMA: Right, and it would certainly help us 
sleep better at night, because every one of these decisions -- 
some of them that come before us, as you can imagine, are heart 
rendering decisions. And when you sleep at night after 
rendering one of these, or authoring one, you want to know that 
you did, in your conscience, the right thing for the law of the 
state and for these lives of the people that you're dealing 

So, there's a personal motive in this, too. We 
would like to be able to have our conscience clear and sleep 
well, knowing we decided the right way. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

Do you have your family here? 

MR. NEIMA: Yes, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you want to introduce them? 

MR. NEIMA: May I please. 


MR. NEIMA: I would like to introduce my wife, 
Judy Neima, and my oldest daughter, Amy Brocksom. Her husband 
is working today. 

MR. McKINNON: Mr. Chairman and Senators, very 
short and brief. I'm Matt McKinnon, California Conference of 
Machinists . 

The California Conference of Machinists supports 
the confirmation of the appointment. 

And I would like to add, Art Polaski is stuck in 
traffic and sent his regards here. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, move the nomination. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. NEIMA: Thank you, Chairman and Senators. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately. 
11:00 A.M. ] 

— 00O00-- 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
Q day of ' ^ i y , 2002. 


Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 

(includes shipping and handling) 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 452-R when ordering. 

no. It 





MAY 2 9 2002 



ROOM 113 


MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2002 
2:10 PM. 

453- R 




ROOM 113 


2:10 P.M. 

Reported by. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 






GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






Industrial Welfare Commission 


California Labor Federation 

Stephen P. Teale Data Center 


American GI Forum 

NASSER AZIMI, Chief Information Officer 
San Francisco Unified School District 


Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Industrial Welfare Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Manager Exemption Issue and Lawsuit 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Court Ruling 2 

IWC's Decision to Hire Private Attorney and 

Go Against Opinions of AG and Leg . Counsel 3 

Discussions re: Definition of Manager 4 

Input from Director or Staff of 

Department of Industrial Relations 6 

Authority to Index the Minimum Wage 7 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Intentions re: Appealing Decision of 

Superior Court in Recent Litigation 8 

IWC's Expenditures in Outside Legal 

Fees to Defend Actions of IWC 10 

Look at Minimum Wage 10 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Non-representation of IWC by AG 10 

Hope that IWC Doesn't Appeal Recent 

Court Decision 11 

Home in Wisconsin 11 


Witness in Opposition: 


California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO 12 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Indexing Minimum Wage 13 

Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Intention to Vote for Confirmation 14 

Hope that IWC Won't Appeal Court's 

Decision 14 

Motion to Confirm 15 

Committee Action 15 


Stephen P. Teale Data Center 16 

Introduction and Support by 


Role and Goals of Data Center 17 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Steps Taken to Ensure No Conflicts of 

Interest in the Awarding of Contracts 19 

Ethics Training 20 

Number of People Responsible for 

Negotiating Contracts 21 

Contract Approval Process 21 

Any Steps Taken to Ensure Customers of 

Teale Don't Have Conflicts of Interest 24 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Preferred Bidders List for Contracts 25 


Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Aging of Workforce 26 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Safeguards in Place to Prevent Future 

Problems, as Occurred with Oracle Contract .... 27 

Witnesses in Support: 


American GI Forum 2 9 

NASSER AZIMI, Chief Information Officer 

San Francisco Unified School District 29 

Motion to Confirm 29 

Committee Action 3 

Termination of Proceedings 3 

Certificate of Reporter 31 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: The first person to appear is 
Mr. Dombrowski . 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Well, as you all know, this is a 
re-appointment as a member of the Industrial Welfare Commission, 
which I take on with great trepidation, given the history of the 
IWC ' s record over the last few years. It's been quite a 
challenge . 

I was appointed originally in September of 1999. 
Immediately, we had to address not just a review of the minimum 
wage, but also all the issues entailed with the passage of AB 
60. So, it was coming up with the policies for the elections, 
looking at all the wage orders, reopening them, amending them, 
and reaching a consensus. 

Subsequent to that adoption, the Commission has 
actually been relatively slowing down. I know as you saw, 
probably, from my earlier statement, its primary purpose going 
forward, I think, is to review the minimum wage every two years, 
and to address whatever labor issues get brought before it. But 
I would hope that it would be a lot less activity going 

I would like to perhaps address maybe the issue 
that's been raised about the manager exempt. There was an issue 
brought up about the manager exempt issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's a couple, but address 
any ones that you think we'd be interested in, but that's one. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Just the procedure-wise, what we 

looked at there was the issue of do you maintain your exemption 
by working one day per week, which is the federal law, and which 
had been California's historic standard, or the new 
interpretation that came out from the Chief Counsel of the Labor 
Department, if you work one day a month you have to get paid for 
the entire month to maintain your exemption. And that opinion 
was issued by the Labor Department, Chief Counsel citing the 
silence of the Legislature on AB 60 when it went through, and 
citing the silence of the IWC on that same issue. 

The majority of the Commissioners remained silent 
on it because we didn't think it was an issue, and so we looked 
for a way to do that, to make a comment to respond to the Labor 
Commissioner. And we used an open wage order to do that. 
Subsequently challenged by the Labor Federation, labor was 
successful in that challenge. We lost at the Superior Court 

But in the meantime, the AG's office informed us 
that we could take a vote and send a letter to the Labor 
Commissioner with our sentiments, which we did. And the Labor ■ 
Commissioner subsequently issued a new opinion letter, which 
reaffirms what California had followed for decades, which is 
that you maintain your exemption by working — or if you work 
one day a week, you get paid for that entire week. 

So, that was the concern raised by the Labor 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Court ruled that what you 
did wasn't -- 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Wasn't right. But that was 

simply on the procedure. 

What was important to the employer community was 
that the policy of the Enforcement Division was consistent with 
what it's historically been, and that is what the Labor 
Commissioner has now done again. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You received several 
communications about how you were doing that, and you went ahead 
and did it any way. And the concern was, it was done with a 
private counsel's opinion in the face of, at that point, your 
own attorney, the Leg. Counsel opinion, and the AG. And we just 
thought that was rather untoward. 

I think I may have expressed that to you. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Actually, I agreed with the AG's 
opinion, because the opinion the AG issued didn't address what 
we were doing. It wasn't -- the question wasn't exactly phrased 
right. So, I actually agreed with the AG's opinion. 

But counsel for the IWC at a hearing did say that 
in her opinion, what we were doing was illegal, separate and 
apart from -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, you ignored your own lawyer 
and went with some private lawyer. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: No, we just felt, Senator, that 
we had to get something on the record because there was so much 
litigation coming down the road. 

And the ironic thing was, at the end of that 
process, that same counsel is the one who informed us, by the 
way, if the majority of Commissioners want to send a letter to 
the Labor Commissioner expressing your viewpoint on this issue, 

you're free to do so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Yeah, that's called the First 
Amendment of the Constitution. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I know, but we went through all 
these hoops without her having informed me of that, when she 
could have done that 90 days earlier, that's all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: On the management thing, you 
and I had long discussions when the bill was going through on 
what is a manager, what isn't. 

I've been into a lot of fast food joints, I've 
been into a lot of grocery stores. They've got more managers 
than you see as producers on some of these so TV shows. You 
know, fresh produce, I mean, everybody's a manager for 
something . 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Actually, it works out — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if that's the 
purpose to get them out from under the eight-hour, or if they're 
just trying to make the person feel good, or who knows 
what . 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: No, this whole issue was not 
going to -- it wasn't changing anything. It was simply trying 
to get to the status guo. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm not talking now about the 
wage order and the thing. When we had the discussions about the 
eight-hour day, who was exempt and who was a manager, and what 
they had to do. 

And you raised an issue that I thought was right. 
You said, if a person's a manager, and a whole bunch of cans 

fall down, and they happen to help restock the shelf, it doesn't 
make him less of a manager. 

But I've walked into a lot of retail 
establishments, and now there's damn near more managers than 
there are clerks, and they seem to be doing clerk work. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: What happened was, we went 
through extensive hearings on that issue and made what I think 
everyone would agree was a very minor, minor change. If an 
activity was closely identified with managing, that would be 
classified as exempt time. 

My impression is that industry is actually 
converting people more to hourly as opposed to trying to expand 
the manager just because the standard in California is so 
different from the federal standard. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would be an example of 
closely aligned to management? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: If you were preparing a report 
for your boss, and you're actually working on a laptop. You 
could take the interpretation that that actual laptop work is 
nonexempt work because it's administrative. But since you are a 
manager and you're doing it, it's clearly closely aligned with a 
manager . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: A manager, a legitimate manager 
may be doing something in the course and scope of their job 
that's not overseeing the world. 

I'm worried about somebody who's really like a 
clerk, and all a sudden that person -- 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: If you're flipping hamburgers 

more than 50 percent of the time, you're not a manager. And, 
you know, if you're working, waiting on customers more than 50 
percent of the time, it's -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Regardless of the badge. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Your title does not matter. 
Your title does not matter at all. What you are doing is what 
the test is in California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When wage orders come up, how 
often are you some touch, say, with the Director of Industrial 
Relations or with their agents? Do they give you much direction 
or input? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Personal attendant wage order 
that was just opened? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just generally, is there — 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Sometimes I am and sometimes I'm 
not. Like the personal attendant, I didn't — I didn't talk to 
the Governor's office at all about that. 

But when we were talking about sheep herders, I 
did talk to him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It seems to be there were a lot 
of wage Orders dealing with carving exemptions, if you will, in 
the eight-hour day, which you had the authority to do under the 
law . 

But I'm just wondering, you know, before you did 
something, were you in touch with the Department of Industrial 
Relations, or were they in touch with you saying, we think you 
ought to be doing this? 

In other words, are you guys an independent 



MR. DOMBROWSKI: We're independent, but, Senator, 
you know, frankly, I try to get input from them when I think 
it's appropriate. I mean, I don't -- I wouldn't say they 
dictate, but they do have an avenue to talk to me. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They do have what? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: They do have an avenue to talk 
to me if they want; I'm open. And I do solicit their input if I 
think, you know, it's appropriate. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they volunteer without you 
soliciting sometimes? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm just trying to figure out 
where it all comes from. Whether it comes from the IWC on their 
own motion, whether it comes from the Director of Industrial 
Relations, from whom it comes. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Sometimes they do come to me. 
I mean, I'm trying to think of an example, but I can't right off 
hand. But it's not -- it's not on everything. It's not on half 
the stuff. It's, I would say, where it's a big issue. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You are the employer 
representative on this thing, not the public member. 

Do you have the authority, if you wanted, to 
index minimum wage? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I'm told we don't. That was 
from Bridget Bane. The Executive Director researched that with 
the AG's office, I believe. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can't index it? In other 


words, you can raise it -- 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: We can raise it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You could double it, triple it, 
quadruple it, but you can't -- 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: We cannot put it on index. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You would need legislative 
authority to do that? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


Let me ask if you intend to support an appeal of 
the Superior Court decision? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Senator, I don't — we don't 
even have the judge's actual language at this point. And I was 
not at the hearings. 

SENATOR ROMERO: But it has been some time since 
the Court came down with the decision? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: They haven't published it, or 

given us his written decision. It was supposed to arrive this 
week, but we haven't seen it yet. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long ago was that? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: It was weeks ago. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: More than that. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I think it was — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Seems like a heck of a long 
time . 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I could be wrong, but March 
14th, March 16th, but we still haven't seen the written 

I don't even know -- 

SENATOR ROMERO: Can you pick up the phone and 
just call and say -- I mean, it's public information; isn't it? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I've been — we've had our legal 
counsel in contact with the Court trying to get it, but they 
have been unsuccessful. And it's important to get that because 
you then have a 60-day window to make your decision. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, he ruled but didn't file? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I guess that's the legal 
procedure . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For some reason I thought that 
court thing was a long time ago. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: It was mid-March. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I would have thought it was 
last March. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Information age. 

So, you have not had that discussion yet? 


SENATOR ROMERO: Can I ask what are your 
preliminary thoughts on that? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I'd like to see what the judge 
says, because I was not at any of the hearings to hear what his 
reaction was to the IWC ' s arguments. I just don't know how else 
to answer that. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Can you tell us what the IWC has 

10 . 

spent in outside legal fees to defend the actions of the IWC? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I don't know, Senator. There's 
an Executive Director that actually manages it. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Let me just go to the question 
of the minimum wage. You're going to be taking a look at that 
coming up soon? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Yeah. There's a hearing on May 
3rd at which there will be discussion and possible motion to go 
to wage boards to look at raising the minimum wage. 

At the March 11th hearing, I instructed staff to 
make sure we put together a timeline that made it clear that 
going through this process, if we wanted to raise it on January 
1st, that that timeline would allow it. 

So, there's not going to be any kind of 
procedural problem. If there's three Commissioners who want to 
raise the minimum wage January 1st, the process is going to 
allow that. 

SENATOR ROMERO: All right. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, is it true that the AG is 
not defending the IWC, or representing it? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Not in that matter, on the 
matter with the labor — the current legal matter. Because they 
expressed -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's just, you know, I would 


hope you don't appeal, myself. As you know, I've got the 
greatest respect for you. I think as far as, I mean, personal 
and professional, I think the fact that you are the employer rep 
gives you much more leeway than were you the public rep. 

But I would really hope that you let this thing 
go, because I just think it is a very contentious issue within 
the Legislature. I think it could have an adverse affect on the 
IWC, which I think performs a very important function. I think 
that, by and large, except for a few slips which I was hoping we 
could lay at the feet of somebody in the administration and not 

But anyway, I would just hope that you take a 
very close look at what the judge said, because we could end up 
-- I didn't know you were with Hill and Knowlton. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI : That was a long time ago. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You were from where in 



MR. DOMBROWSKI: Stevens Point, middle of the 

SENATOR KARNETTE: My niece lives there right 
now. She has a farm. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I spent five years in 
Milwaukee . 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: That explains a lot. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You got a lucky break. 
[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: And I drank a lot of their 
beer . 


[Laughter . ] 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have your family here? 
MR. DOMBROWSKI: My wife and my youngest son, 
Tommy, are here. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. Are you 
going to step up to the plate, Bruce, or leave him hanging? 

to oppose him. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you coming up to — 

MR. RANKIN: Not in support. 

Tom Rankin, California Labor Federation. 

First I'd like to actually commend Bill for his 
long service on the IWC. I know it hasn't been easy. 

The points that I wanted to make have basically, 
I think, been made here. We're concerned about the lawsuit, the 
procedure that was followed. The judge clearly said that they 
didn't follow proper procedures and ruled in our favor. The 
opinion was published Monday. A long delay in the publication ■ 
because the lawyer for the IWC basically was maneuvering around 
and stalling everything out for as long as he could. 

I certainly trust that they will not appeal this 
case. I know how much the Federation has spent on local fees 
already, and I'm sure, given their attorney, they probably have 
spent twice as much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who was their attorney? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Sheppard, Mullin. 

MR. RANKIN: We're also concerned about the 


timing of the minimum wage increase. This is somewhat lessened 
by the fact that the IWC has taken a clear position, both 
Mr. Dombrowski and Mr. Smith, that they have no authority to 
index the minimum wage, so we're dealing with that through 

And also the problem that started the whole 
lawsuit, the Miles Locker opinion, actually needs a legislative 
solution. We had one, and now that the lawsuit, hopefully, is 
finished, maybe the employers will see the light and decide that 
the way to fix this is through legislation, not through 
litigation . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, what's Mr. Smith got to do 
with the determination that they can't do -- 

MR. RANKIN: Well, I don't know. He was asked at 
a budget hearing last week, with the Executive Director of the 
IWC sitting next to him, and the question was asked. He chose 
to answer it. She didn't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What did he say? 

MR. RANKIN: He said that they had no authority 
to index the minimum wage. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if they do or 
don't. It would seem to me, in a way, if you could raise it 
every other day, you ought to be able to index it, but I don't 
know whether or not the law says each time it goes up, you have 
take action. I don't know. 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Sir, Tom might remember this 
better than I, but the language in the statute, I believe, that 
gives us the authority is that we can review the adequacy of the 


minimum wage -- we must review the adequacy of the minimum wage 
every two years. That's the statutory authority. 

MR. RANKIN: It's silent -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We can get an opinion on this, 
but you could index it, and even indexing it, review whether or 
not, even with -- the index would be a COLA, I guess -- even 
with the COLA, is it adequate? 

MR. RANKIN: That's been our position, but they 
apparently don't believe that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm of the opinion that the 
Director of Industrial Relations directs the Commission, to a- 
fair extent, on matters that are sensitive, shall we say, to the 
body at large. 

I intend to vote for the confirmation on two 
bases. One, it's the business rep. Two, I trust him more than 
other business reps, you know, to say the least. 

And I think that clearly the message that I 
really want to leave is, I don't see any need unless the opinion 
is just so totally flawed, I don't see any reason to keep this 
thing alive and be appealing it. I mean, the world hasn't 
ended, and all of that stuff. 

I mean, I understand what Tom Rankin's saying, 
and I find that a problem more elsewhere than the Commission. 

I think that, you know, we definitely are going 
to deal with the public members a lot different than we do with 
industry members, as we did with Forestry and as we did with 
this, which I'm sure would be a work of real hardship on the 
public member. 


What do you guys get, about 50,000 a year? 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: It's $91 and, I think, 53 cents 
after deductions on the $100 per meeting. 

MR. RANKIN: But part of that deduction goes to 
your retirement. 

[Laughter . ] 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Which I've never understood. 

MR. RANKIN: Temporary members, $7 goes to 
retirement . 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: I think my money goes to help 
fund some of yours. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I move the nomination. Call 

the roll 

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Bill. 


MR. DOMBROWSKI: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Carlos Ramos, Director of the 
Stephen P. Teale Data Center. 

Go ahead, Senator. 

SENATOR MACHADO: Thank you, Senator Burton. 

I'm here to introduce Carlos Ramos for the 
confirmation as Director for the Teale Data Center. He's a 
constituent of mine in the Fifth Senatorial District. He 
resides in the community of Elk Grove. 

Prior to his appointment, Carlos has served as 
Deputy Director of the California Department of Social Service, 
with responsibilities for the Informational Systems Division. 
As Director of the ISD, Carlos served as the Department's Chief 
Information Officer and was responsible for managing the 
department's IT assets and statewide IT structure. 

He's well aware of the role of IT in government 
and the need to make it work, given what has happened in the 
past week. 

He has served in numerous other positions in 
state government, and he brings a rare combination of being a 
dedicated' public servant and a creative and innovative leader. 
I believe he would do the Data Center justice and urge your 
favorable consideration of his appointment to that position. 

MR. RAMOS: Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. 
And thank you, Senator Machado. 

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Carlos Ramos, Director 
of the Teale Data Center. I'm very pleased to be here with you 
this afternoon. 


I've submitted previously some information on my 
goals for Teale as well as my experience, but I do have a 
statement that I've prepared, with your indulgence. 

The Teale Data Center is the department that 
provides technology services to other departments and agencies. 
As such, Teale plays an important role in helping state 
government to deliver services to its constituents. 

In recognition of the critical role that 
technology plays, the state has made a significant investment in 
the infrastructure out at Teale. That infrastructure includes 
multiple computing platforms, everywhere from mid-range 
mainframes to internet platforms. We also own and operate a 
statewide communication network which enables state offices and 
staff throughout California to connect to their IT systems 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. 

The other critical component of the 
infrastructure is the staff of managerial and technical 
professionals out at Teale that help run the Data Center and 
provide consultation and expertise to our customers. We have 
250 different agencies as our customers, including, 
coincidentally, the Senate Rules Committee. 

Teale ' s completely self-supporting. What that 
means is, we generate our revenues through the services that we 
offer to our customers. We are a state agency, so that means we 
operate on a not-for-profit basis, and so we offer competitive 
rates to our customers. 

I took the helm at Teale in December. As 
Director, it is my job to make sure that the Data Center is 

prepared to meet the technology services needs of our customer 
departments. What that means is, first and foremost, I need to 
understand the business of government. I need to know what my 
client departments do, who they serve, and what are the 
expectations of their constituents and their customers. 

Secondly, it's my job to understand technology 
and what's going on in the technology industry, and to know how 
what is happening in the technology industry impacts the Data 
Center as well as our customers. 

Then thirdly, it's my job to work with our 
customers to ensure that the appropriate application of 
technology is used to better serve California and its 
constituents . 

As the Director, I have three simple goals for 
the Data Center. First, I would like Teale to be not just a 
provider of excellent technology services, but an actual partner 
in working with our customer departments in the delivery of 
important government services. 

Secondly, I would like to see the state better 
leverage the investment it has already made at Teale and in the 
Data Center and its infrastructure. The state owns a world 
class technology center in Teale. And while we still have some 
departments that try and go out and build, and develop, and 
deploy technology systems, I'm basically starting from scratch. 
I'd like to see them more closer in partnership with Teale, to 
not have to start at ground level. 

Thirdly, I would like Teale to become a 
technology services provider, not only to the state, but to 


other sectors of government as well. We already work with a 
number of local jurisdictions, and during my tenure, I intend to 
work with school districts, with local and city and county 
governments, and other jurisdictions so that they also don't 
have to start from scratch as they start looking for IT 
solutions . 

Since I promised to keep my statement brief, I 
will end here, but I will wrap up by telling you that I'm very 
excited about the opportunity to be at Teale and the opportunity 
to create some synergy with my customer departments to better 
deliver services to the State of California. 

I will also tell you that as a public servant, 
I'm very dedicated and consider myself a steward of the state's 
technology investment which it has made at Teale Data Center. 
As such, I plan to hold myself accountable not only to my 
customers, but also to the Legislature and to the people of 
California during my tenure at Teale. 

I'll stop here, but I ' d be happy to go into more 
information and more details on any of the information I've 

Thank you very much. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Can you tell us what have you 
done to ensure that employees at the Data Center have no 
conflicts of interest in awarding contracts? 

MR. RAMOS: Certainly, Senator. 

We do take that have seriously at Teale. One of 
the things that we do is, staff that are involved in the 
negotiation of contracts, or awarding of contracts, do have to 


fill out what is called a Form 700, the Conflict of Interest 
statement. All of the executive staff, and I believe all of the 
managerial staff as well, which basically lays out they're 
required to disclose any interest that they have in any other 
ventures outside of state service. 

So, we manage those. Staff are required to fill 
those out, and we review them regularly. We have our staff 
counsel review them to identify any potential conflicts. And if 
there are conflicts, then those staff are excused from awarding 
or being involved in any contracts that could be a potential 
conflict . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Is it a question just handing 
somebody a form and saying, you've got to turn this in, and 
you've got to turn it in by X date? Or, does someone talk to 
them about both the letter and the spirit of the law, and what 
the obligations are, and what the importance of ensuring that 
there is no either actuality or appearance of a conflict? 

MR. RAMOS: Thank you, Senator, for reminding me. 

Yes. In fact, it isn't just giving them a form 
and asking them to turn it in. 

We do actually send them through ethics training, 
and we do have an ethics officer who's on site and responsible 
for making sure folks understand that it's not just an exercise, 
that we take it seriously. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: What percentage of that 
individual's time is spent on that kind of heightening of 
awareness of ethical considerations? 

MR. RAMOS: I wouldn't be able — I ' d be 


guessing right now, Senator. 

In terms of the training that goes on, we work 
both -- I don't think the individual is solely responsible for 
the training. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: How many people have 
responsibilities that involve the negotiations of contracts? 

MR. RAMOS: I would say probably a couple of 
dozen, Senator. That would include managers, and supervisors, 
and executive staff, as well as folks that are involved in the 
actual procurement process and the contracting process. 

We have a contracting unit, and then we have an 
administrative staff. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Can you tell me a little bit 
about the approval process, let's say, that is gone through? 
You have a technology contract. It's solely within the Data 
Center purview. What kind of approval process does that bump up 
the line? 

We've seen the hearings in the last few days 
regarding another contract. And the impression I had was that 
nobody was in charge, and everybody's kind of around the room, 
pointing at somebody else, you know, whether it's Susan Kennedy, 
or it's General Services and Senator Keene, or it's Department 
of Finance, or just who's in charge. 

So, I'm interested in what kind of approval 
processes are involved. Is it a similar situation where, you 
know, everybody's in charge so therefore, nobody's in charge? 

MR. RAMOS: Certainly. 

We actually have a very rigorous approval 


process. Most of the contracting -- the contracting that we do 
out at Teale falls into three different categories. We either 
contract for services, contract for software or for hardware 
equipment essentially. 

In either case, we start off first by identifying 
what is the need for whatever we're trying to contract for, 
whether it's a good or a service, validating that need. 
Sometimes we contract on behalf of our customers, so we go back 
to the customers to make sure there really is a need for 
whatever service or good that we're trying to contract. 

After we identify what the need is and validate 
that it, in fact, exists, we identify what other products or 
services -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You're talking about other 
agencies, not restricted to state? 

MR. RAMOS: No, state agencies, state 
departments, primarily. 

Once we've identified that there is a valid need, 
we identify whether the product -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Excuse me for interrupting, but 
how do you do that typically? 

MR. RAMOS: Well, we first look at what is the 
business need that they're trying to accomplish; what is the 
need that they're trying to meet. Find out if it is something 
that cannot be provided for either with current existing 
resources, state staff, other technology we may already have on 
site, software that we already own. 

Once we make a determination, and again, we work 


with our customers to do that. Once we make a determination 
that there is actually a valid need, then we identify the 
products and -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Let me tell you what bothers me 
about that a little bit. I'm potentially a customer, and I know 
absolutely nothing about it. 

How do I gain some assurance that the people that 
you're talking to really have any greater grasp than I would 

I mean, I can assume that they have some grasp of 
what it is they're trying to do. But what that translates into 
in terms of technology needs, that's another question 
altogether . 

MR. RAMOS: The folks that we work with, the 
customers, we work both with the business side of the house, and 
most departments have some sort of a technology shop in there. 

Secondly, we also use our own experts. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: DMV, for example? I'm being 

MR. RAMOS: We also do have the technical staff 
and technological experts that work at the Data Center. So, our 
staff work in coordination with them. 

Anyway, the process is: identify any products, 
any potential alternatives to those products; identify who are 
the different sellers of those products; what are the different 
procurement options, whether we can go through Siemans, for 
example. Or, do we need to go out to bid and then negotiate the 
best deal we can. 


Once we've identified that, we do have some 
thresholds that we have in terms of what we're allowed to 
negotiate on our own. Anything below half a million dollars, 
the Data Center can work with on its own. Beyond that, then we 
have to work with our control agencies and go through a more 
rigorous process. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: One final question, and that 
is, in dealing with people in these departments and so on, and 
you've indicated that you try to make clear to the folks who are 
involved in procurement, contracts, of the need to avoid any 
possibility or appearance of a conflict of interest. 

What about the folks on the other end, the 
customers that you're talking about? What steps are taken to 
ensure that there 're not conflicts of interest there, so that we 
can rest assured that they're not providing you with information 
that's inaccurate that would lead to a result that they intend, 
but may or may not be in the best interest of taxpayers? 

MR. RAMOS: Our jurisdiction is fairly limited in 
terms of other state agencies, being able to impose requirements 
or anything like that. 

They do have the same conflict of interest 
requirements, but those would be enforced by their own 
management . 

SENATOR JOHNSON: So basically, it's just a 
question of, you trust them. That's what it sounds like you're 
saying . 

MR. RAMOS: To a certain extent we trust — 

SENATOR JOHNSON: We presume the customer is 


always right. 

MR. RAMOS: Well, to a certain extent we trust 
them, but we do work collaboratively with them. I mean, we 
work -- usually it's not a single person from the other agency. 
It's usually a team of people. 

And I think the process by, first of all, 
verifying that there's a need, verifying that the technology 
actually or the product that they're requesting actually is the 
only alternative, or the best possible alternative. There's 
quite a bit of analysis that goes into that. 

So, generally, the process, I think, would show 
if there is somebody that's directing -- 

SENATOR JOHNSON: With respect, it doesn't sound 
a whole lot different from I read and heard of the Oracle 
process. It sounds remarkably similar. 

Senator Burton, questions? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I understand you correctly, you put out an RFP 
for a contract? 

MR. RAMOS: We do in certain cases if they're 
large contracts. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Within that, do you have a . 
preferred bidders list that you have qualified people, and 
you've investigated them and their background as to their 
capability to perform? 


MR. RAMOS: When we go out to a formal RFP, 
Senator, there is a bidder pre-qualif ication process. Some of 
it is managed by Department of General Services, also our own 
staff get involved in that. 

Separate and apart from that process, the 
Department of General Services does have what's called the CMS 
process in which they do go out and do a pre-qualif ication of 
vendors. So, they go through a process where vendors have to 
submit information about their qualifications, what projects 
they've worked on, customer references, those sorts of things. 
And they go through that process on an annual basis. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: In that process, along with what 
Senator Johnson asked, would ethics be part of that? 

MR. RAMOS: In terms of private sector companies, 
I believe it is, but I'm not certain of that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I'm a bit concerned about the 
age of your workers, that you have some strategies to get some 
qualified people in before they all retire. 

MR. RAMOS: Yes. We are facing, along with other 
departments in the state, the aging of our workforce. We've 
done some tracking in terms of identifying what the average age 
is of our management workforce, for example, and our line 

We're doing a couple of things. One is, we're 
trying to establish feeder programs with the technical schools 
in the area. We're also trying to work on development. So what 
we do is, we hire students, for example, to come and work at 

. 27 

Teale Data Center, expose them to what it's like to work in the 
state, and then, you know, hopefully develop a pool of 
candidates for future vacancies. 

Second, we also work in development of staff once 
they're already there. So, we train them not only for the job 
they have today, but also potentially for the job of tomorrow, 
whether it's in the management ranks or as they move into 
different areas of technology. 

Frankly, we've been a bit challenged of late with 
the hiring freeze. Along with other departments, we've been 
impacted with that. And so, we're seeking exemptions so that we 
can make sure we keep folks in the pipeline, and that we're also 
able to serve our customers. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like,, if your 
family's here, to introduce them? 

MR. RAMOS: Yes, please. I have with me today my 
wife, Valerie Ramos, a principal at David Levy Elementary 
School. So, I talked her into taking a couple of hours today. 

My two children, Veronica and Daniel, who are off 
track. They're not actually playing hooky today. 

Thank you, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sort of an open ended question, 
but what type of safeguards do you have in place that would 
prevent like what happened in the Oracle deal happening with any 
of your purchases? 

MR. RAMOS: Well, I guess I'd start by saying my 
understanding of what happened in the Oracle process is somewhat 


limited, as I wasn't personally involved with it, and have 
basically gathered information from that at the hearing as well. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You weren't involved in it. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: So you know what we know, what 
you read in the paper? 

MR. RAMOS: That and through the hearing and the 
audit. I did read the audit. 

My understanding of what went wrong is basically 
there wasn't a good process in place to negotiate the contract, 
and to negotiate a deal of that type. 

I think the process that we use at Teale is a 
very rigorous process, in that, one, before we get into any 
deal, we validate that. there is in fact a need for the product, 
or software in this case. We identify any potential 
alternatives to that product. We look for who the different 
sellers are of the product, go out to bid or go out and solicit 
multiple competing bids so that we can ensure that the prices 
that are quoted to us are accurate. 

Then I guess the other -thing that we do is, we 
primarily, in effect, exclusively go out and procure products 
for an already known and identified need. So, you know, we 
don't procure, for example, software on a contingent basis. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Software that you might need in 
ten years. 

MR. RAMOS: Right. We purchase essentially for 
whatever our customers need, and we know that they need because 
we track their historical utilization, or for our own internal 


proj ects . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

MR. RAMIREZ: Mr. Chairman, Members. My name is 
Frank Ramirez. I represent the American GI Forum, and I come in 
strong support by both the State Commander and the National 
Commander . 

Carlos Ramos is a fine example of competence and 
diversity that we need in the workforce. We're in strong 
support . 

MR. AZIMI: Mr. Chair and Members, my name is 
Nasser Azimi. I'm the Chief Information Officer of the San 
Francisco Unified School District. 

I'm a strong supporter of the Director's 
confirmation. I have had the opportunity to work for the 
Director, work with him, and work against him in some instances. 
He's one of the most credible individuals in the industry, and I 
fully support his appointment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Your job is what with the 
school district? 

MR. AZIMI: I'm the Chief Information Officer for 
the school district. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Any witnesses in opposition? 

Move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson 

SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 
MR. RAMOS: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately. 
3:00 P.M. ] 




I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 


day of (1. ±-x2-l<J' 

, 2002 



V — I f .- 


Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 

(includes shipping and handling) 
plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 453-R when ordering. 





MAY 2 9 2002 



ROOM 113 


3:32 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2 002 
3:32 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 




GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


California Transportation Commission 



California Labor Federation 


State Pipe Trades Council; State Association of Electrical 

Workers; Western States Sheetmetal Workers 


Congress of California Seniors; Alliance for Retired Americans 

Transportation California 



California Transportation Commission 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


California Transportation Commission 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Introduction and Support by 


Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Governor's Budget Proposal to 

Transfer Money from TCRF Funds into 

General Fund 2 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Highway 13 8 3 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Transportation Issues of Seniors and 

Disabled 3 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Transportation of Goods 4 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Role of Commission in Addressing the 
Jobs/Housing Imbalance in California 5 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

"Dateline" Program on Hazardous Highways 5 

Discussion on Status of Highway 710 6 


Witnesses in Support: 


California Labor Federation 6 


State Pipe Trades Council; State Association of 

Electrical Workers; Western States Sheetmetal 

Workers 6 


Congress of California Seniors; Alliance for 

Retired Americans 6 


Transportation California 7 

Motion to Confirm 7 

Committee Action 8 


California Transportation Commission 8 

Background and Experience 8 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Confirmed Once before to Commission 8 

Agreement with Prior Nominee on Loaning 

Funds to General Fund 9 

Jobs/Housing Imbalance 9 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Views on STIP Funding under SB 4 5 . 9 

Statements in Support by 


Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

"Dateline" Program on Dangerous Highways 11 


Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Changing Funding Formula in SB 45 to 

Help in Transportation of Goods 12 

Motion to Confirm 12 

Committee Action 13 

Termination of Proceedings 13 

Certificate of Reporter 14 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you don't mind, we'll take 
Mr. Balgenorth out of order. He's got a meeting. 

Robert Balgenorth, Member, California 
Transportation Commission. 

MR. BALGENORTH: My name is Bob Balgenorth. I'll 
tell you a little bit about my background. 

I started out as a merchant seaman. I became an 
electrician in 1969 and have been active in the labor movement 
ever since. 

I've served on numerous committees and 
commissions, and I have an active interest in transportation 
issues. The unions that I represent, about two hundred 
construction unions, a lot of the work that they do is building 
roads, bridges, dams, airports, and rail transit, and things of 
that nature. So, I have an interest in expediting construction 
projects of any kind, and interest in making sure that the 
highway and travel needs of the state are met. 

I stand ready to answer any questions that you 
have . 

I do understand that my responsibility is not 
only that the Governor appointed me, but I do understand that 
the Legislature has a lot to say about what happens on 
Transportation Commission's issues. I respect that and am 
interested in your opinions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you here to — 

SENATOR TORLAKSON: I think he's done an able job 

already himself. 

You know him well as a leader, a great labor 
leader in the state, working on the apprenticeship councils, and 
then he's taken on the leadership of the building trades at a 
critical time, and then contributed countless hours as co-chair 
of the Twenty-first Century Infrastructure Commission. 

A former merchant seaman, which we share in 
common, that little bit of heritage. But hard working and 
someone I think will do an outstanding job in this position, 
actually creating the infrastructure of California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of the things that's come 
up because of the General Fund shortfalls, the Governor's budget 
proposals to transfer or loan money from the TCRF funds into the 
General Funds with loans, maybe even proposed from the State 
Highway Account, to back-fill the money that was taken from 

Do you have any idea what kind of terms, 
conditions, or limits we should put on these? What the interest 
should be, certain repayment stuff? 

If you haven't given any thought to it, that's 
fine, too. 

MR. BALGENORTH: I haven't given a lot of thought 
to it . 

What I would say is that I think it would be 
imperative that the funds come back so that none of the -- in a 
timely manner -- so that none of the projects would be delayed, 
and I would be a strong advocate of making sure the money come 

My understanding is that by temporarily loaning 
the money to the General Fund that there will be no delays in 
any of the projects, provided the Legislature in the budget 
language makes sure that the money does come back in a timely 

manner . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Have you heard of Highway — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We should have briefed him on 

that one. 

MR. BALGENORTH: I've definitely heard of 138 and 
numerous other projects, and I have an open mind. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: He's not interested in open 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Straight down the line. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Before we leave, I'm going to 
see that project completed. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: We only have two years, John. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Pete, between the two of us, if 
I can straighten you out on a couple of matters. 

[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I'm not even going to ask about 
the 710. There's got to be another issue there. 

Let me ask you, today there was a rally from 
AARP . One of their big issues that they took up was providing 
greater services to improve the mobility for seniors, and the 

What are your thoughts on that with respect to 

MR. BALGENORTH: I think that all of our citizens 
should be able to take advantage of our transportation system. 
I think that there needs to be some mechanisms to make sure that 
all of those concerns are addressed. 

I'm not certain how you go about that. I've only 
been on the Commission for one month, but I certainly would be 
interested in finding a way to see that our seniors and disabled 
have a way to be mobile in our state. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: As a merchant seaman, I'm 
interested in how you feel about transporting of goods, and what 
we need to do? How can we help in that area of getting goods 
transported to their destination in an efficient and effective 

MR. BALGENORTH: Well, there are a couple things. 
We are the gateway to the rest of the nation from the Pacific 
Rim, so I think that it ' s important that you have harbors that 
can bring goods in, and that you have rail and good road 
transportation from the ports in a way that it doesn't impact 
the residents of the community. So, you're going to have to 
deal with great separation. You're going to have to deal with 
access, and all those issues. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I have one question, and we're 
sitting there with somebody who's really into it. 

What role do you think that the Transportation 

Commission can play addressing jobs, housing imbalance, where 
they have the jobs here; there's no housing available. People 
then drive, like, some a couple hours to get to work. I think 
down in Santa Clara now, one of the big builders down there is 
Steve Schott. He told me that he's building down in Soledad. I 
don't know if there's much of a freeway going there. 

I mean, what kind of role do you think they could 
play in sort of trying to at least coordinate things to a 
certain extent, if possible? 

MR. BALGENORTH: I would think transportation 
projects that met the state's goals and the state's needs 
would -- should have priority over ones that don't. 

The state only has a limited amount of money that 
they have control over. I guess 25 percent of the STIP goes to 
state, and 75 percent of local. Maybe we need to look at some 
form of allocation of that, and some mechanism to say that these 
are projects that don't create more problems for us; instead, 
that solve problems. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. 

Did you happen to see a program last night on 
"Dateline" that dealt with the hazardous highways of the 

MR. BALGENORTH: No, I did not. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: With all due respect, 
Mr. Chairman, 138 was one of those highways, and 395 was another 
one. They didn't mention 710. 

But interestingly enough, they were very much 

concerned about the safety of those highways and the number of 
people that were killed on them. 

It is a serious issue within my district. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where is 710 now? Did we pass 
a bill to build it, or we passed a bill not to build it? We've 
had that three sessions running. What's the present status: 
don't build or build? 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, we keep voting on it. 
We keep voting to do it, and so far, it's not built. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think the last one, we voted 
not to do it. 

SENATOR ROMERO: It's in court. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Well, Jack Scott doesn't have 
that area any more, so maybe he'll vote yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But other people do. 

Anyway, Mr. Rankin. 

MR. RANKIN: Tom Rankin, California Labor 
federation in support of Bob's confirmation. 

I've sat on committees with him for a number of 
years. He's a good consensus builder. I've also spent a lot of 
time on the road with him, and I can attest to his interest in 

MR. WETCH: Mr. Chairman, Scott Wetch on behalf 
of the State Pipe Trades Council, the State Association of 
Electrical Workers, and the Western States Sheetmetal Workers 
Association in strong support. 

MR. POWERS: Bill Powers, Congress of California 


Seniors and Alliance for Retired Americans. 

I'm glad you asked that question. It's an 
important question for us. 

We've worked with Mr. Balgenorth for a number of 
years on many issues. We know he's supportive of senior 
concerns, and we strongly urge an aye vote. 

MR. SMITH: D.J. Smith, representing 
Transportation California, a consortium of all the contractors 
and vendors who build the transportation systems, and the trade 
unions . 

We're in strong support. I've known Bob for ten 
years. He's been in the trenches, is a supporter of 
transportation every step of the way. So, I think there's no 
one that we can think of that would know more about this program 
from the construction side. Certainly, project delivery is a 
big issue, as we all know. So, we strongly support 
Mr. Balgenorth. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 

Move the nomination. Call the roll. 

Did you bring any family? 

MR. BALGENORTH: Yes, I did. I have my wife, 
Gail, in the audience. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. BALGENORTH: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative matters.] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Allen Lawrence, Member, 
California Transportation Commission. 

How are you, Allen? 

MR. LAWRENCE: Doing fine, Senator. 

My name is Allen Lawrence. I'm with the 
California Transportation Commission. I just finished my second 
year on the Commission. 

It's been an outstanding learning experience, and 
gave me an opportunity to do public service as well as be an 
independent business person in California. I'm a partner in a 
major California insurance brokerage firm. My partners that run 
the business have allowed me to take time off to do public 
service. It certainly has been a rewarding experience, feeling 
very good about the accomplishments. 

I live in Southern California. Have four grown 
daughters. Live in West Lake Village. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You were confirmed once 


MR. LAWRENCE: I was confirmed, Senator 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: It was a short term. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Anything bad happen in that 

MR. LAWRENCE: I think it was generally a good 
two-year experience. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You heard the questions that we 
asked Mr. Balgenorth. One was about the loans, or taking money 
out of your funds, then backfilling that with some highway funds 
to bail out the General Fund. 

His comments were ones that actually made sense. 
If you needed the money, do it, but have a pay back position and 
don't put us in a thing where much needed projects are delayed 
or denied. 

I would imagine you'd agree with that? 

MR. LAWRENCE: I do agree with that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you comment a bit on the 
so-called jobs/housing balance as it relates to transportation? 

MR. LAWRENCE: Sure. I think that the — 
obviously, we need to consider higher density communities around 
rail stops and transit stops, and to build integrated 
communities that have jobs, housing, recreation, shopping, all 
near to where people live. I think these planned communities 
are important, an important ingredient to doing that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


I ' d be interested to hear your views on STIP 
funding. And under, of course, Senate Bill 45, whether it's 
working or not, or if we should take a look at perhaps some 


other type of distribution of responsibility and funds? 

MR. LAWRENCE: Well, STIP funding under SB 45 is 
working. I think that in our annual report to the Legislature, 
which was published, I believe, early December of last year, one 
of the recommendations we made is that SB 45 be revisited 
relative to looking at how the percentages that we fund to the 
local regional agencies and what Caltrans -- what the Department 
retains for the shop and for the ITIP. 

Right now, the regional agencies get 75 percent 
of the STIP funds, and the ITIP, the Interregional 
Transportation Improvement Program, gets 25 percent. 

So, I think that perhaps we should look at 
perhaps an allocation that's higher than 25 percent, perhaps as 
much as 50 percent, so that the state can actually finish the 
major corridor projects instead of fragmenting the monies in the 
local regions, where the local regions hand out the funds to the 
smaller cities, and they use the funds as they wish. 

I mean, we have some major, important freeway 
projects that we need additional capacity on, and we need to 
complete them. And I think that is something that I would 
encourage the Legislature to look at seriously. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Polanco. 

SENATOR POLANCO: Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
this distinguished committee. 

I'm here to ask full support of Allen Lawrence. 
Allen Lawrence has been a friend for over twenty years. He is a 
distinguished community leader, great businessman, has served on 
this commission, has done an excellent job. And I wanted to 


come down here to personally lend my support and ask you to move 
the confirmation of this fine gentleman, my friend. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: We've already had our 
discussions today about the appropriate highways, but I will 
ask, did you see the "Dateline" last night concerning the 
dangerous highways within the country? 

MR. LAWRENCE: Unfortunately I didn't, Senator 
Knight. I had to go to bed early because I had to get up at 
4:30 this morning to catch a plane. So, I didn't see that, but 
I'm aware of the 138 as being one of the -- the "Readers' 
Digest" a year or two ago ran a feature article on a number of 
the death alleys throughout the United States, and 138 was 
listed among them. 

Certainly, highway safety is one of the most 
important things that concern the Commission and the Department 
and the administration. And we have taken every opportunity to 
be of assistance in funding not only the 138, but other 
corridors throughout the state that have similar problems. And 
certainly, that is a major concern of ours, and we continue to 
look at that and focus on it. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, 138 and 395 were both 
listed last night as dangerous highways, blood alleys, et 
cetera . 

MR. LAWRENCE: And I know that in the latest 
STIP, the 395 has got a considerable amount of money for 
improvements on that as well. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I was interested in what you 
said about SB 45. The goods movement issue that I brought up 
before, if the funding formula was changed a bit, would that 
relate? You were talking about corridors, mainline corridors. 
Would that help in goods movement in this area? 

MR. LAWRENCE: I think it would, because I think 
that if the state had more of the funds than the 25 percent that 
they're using in the ITIP, they could prioritize the major 
corridors that need the most investment, and certainly direct 
the money there and get the regional agencies to buy in, too. 

You know, I think one of the things that the 
Department is doing now with the ITIP money that they have, they 
are now looking at investing that ITIP money when they have 
regional support. And certainly if we have more ITIP money, we 
can do more of that and really assist in the goods movement, 
which is, you know, a major economic benefit to the state and 
the nation. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support? 

Your family didn't get up at 4:00 in the morning? 

MR. LAWRENCE: Just my transportation family in 

the audience 

Witnesses in opposition? 
Move the nomination. Call the roll 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight 

SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 
CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Allen. 
MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing 
was terminated at approximately. 
4:04 P.M. ] 




I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

t IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

I day of ~~1 ~y\*Csc-t , 2002. 

^~ T 

"X i 


% — 

Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 454-R when ordering. 






MAY 2 9 l21 



ROOM 112 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2002 
1:30 P.M. 


Reported by: 





ROOM 112 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2 002 

1:30 P.M, 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 





GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 
PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


Department of Corrections 


Youth and Adult Correctional Agency 


Association of Black Correctional Workers 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 


ROD MULLEN, President and Chief Executive Officer 
Amity Foundation 


American GI Forum; CAFE de California; American Mexican War 


DARSHAN SINGH, Vice Chairman 
Prison Industry Authority 

SEIU 1000 

JESSE L. GARCIA, Vice President 

State Chapter, National Latino Peace Officers Association 


National Latino Peace Officers Association 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 

American GI Forum/Educator 


UNION (United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect) 


Families of Prisoners, Prisoners of Davis, VIP 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 


Department of Corrections 1 

Introduction and Support by 

ROBERT PRESLEY, Secretary, Youth and 

Adult Correctional Agency 1 

Background and Experience, 

Goals and Objectives 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Need to Have Pre-release Instructional 

Programs for More Inmates 4 

Pre-release Classes Offered 5 

Screening of Potential Parolees before 
Enrollment in Pre-release Classes 6 

Training for Wardens and Deputy Wardens 8 

Any Criteria for Becoming Warden 10 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Warden Qualifications 10 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Waiting List for Dental Care at 

Institutions 11 

Priority of Health Care with 

Budget Cuts 12 

Tracking Inmate Appeals through System 12 

Input in Governor's May Revise Numbers 13 


Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Veterans Program at Ironwood 14 

Proposals to Shut Down Private Prisons 15 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Policy on Inmate Phone Calls 16 

Position on Department's Chief 

Psychologist Having Policy Input 18 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Training of Employee Relations Officers 19 

Person Responsible for Deciding Who 

Needs Training and in Which Areas 19 

Evaluation of Correctional Employees 
Experiencing Problems 20 

Additional Compensation for Employees 

Who Receive Additional Education 21 

Evaluation of Programs Offered by 

Volunteer Groups in Prisons 21 

Person Ultimately Responsible for 

Training 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Substance Abuse Programs 23 

Anger Management Courses 24 

Questions Formulated by SENATOR POLANCO 25 

Actions of Department regarding 

Employee Disciplinary Actions 26 

Response to Public Comments on 

Proposed Regulations 2 7 




Association of Black Correctional Workers 28 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 2 9 

ROD MULLEN, President and CEO 

Amity Foundation 2 9 

BILL GARCIA, State Advisor 

American GI Forum; American Mexican War Mothers; 

CAFE de Califonia 31 

DAR SINGH, Vice Chairman 

Prison Industry Authority 32 


Central California Women's Facility, Chowchilla 33 

JESSE GARCIA, Vice President 

National Latino Peace Offices Association 34 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 34 


American GI Forum 3 5 



United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect 35 

Comments by CHAIRMAN BURTON 4 5 


Families of Prisoners 46 

Questions and Statements by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Food Budget per Inmate 50 

Request for Week' s Menu 51 

What Precipitates a Lockdown Situation 51 

VI 1 

Pay of Time-and-a-half during Lockdowns ....... 53 

Importance of Literacy in Prison 53 

Availability of AA, NA, and Anger 

Management Courses 53 

Importance of Visiting System 53 

Motion to Confirm 54 

Committee Action 54 

Termination of Proceedings 54 

Certificate of Reporter 55 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointee to be 
heard today, Edward Alameida, Jr., Director of Corrections. 

SECRETARY PRESLEY: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted 
to take a second and introduce Mr. Alameida, in case you haven't 
had a chance to meet him. 

He's a fine man doing a very, very tough and 
important job, and highly, I think, qualified. He was appointed 
by the Governor several months ago, and we're working on a 
number of important issues, making, hopefully, some progress. 

I'd like to commend him to you and hope you'll 
support his confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Senator Presley. 

Mr. Alameida. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, if it pleases the 
Committee, I'd like to read a statement. 


MR. ALAMEIDA: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Senate Rules Committee. 

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before you and give an overall picture of how I view the 
California Department of Corrections, and some of the challenges 
and opportunities we face. In facing them, I look forward to 
working with you, with the Governor, and with other criminal 
justice agencies throughout the state. 

Since my appointment in September of last year, I 
have taken a comprehensive look at where the Department stands 

today. I have visited almost all of our prisons and parole 
regions. That effort is ongoing, but I have identified many of 
the major issues facing the Department. 

Before I address them, however, I must share with 
you that the Department is staffed by more than 48,000 of the 
most dedicated, hard working, and caring state employees. I 
have worked in CDC in many capacities for more than 29 years. 
Throughout that time, I have witnessed extraordinary commitment, 
creativity, and energy on the part of the vast majority of our 
staff. It is an honor to be asked to lead them, to work with 
them in developing creative approaches to the issues we now 

The most serious of these issues is our ongoing 
structural budget deficiency. This is something we've been 
struggling with for the past several years. It directly affects 
the core of the CDC program operations and our ability to 
manage. It is critical that we address this issue and resolve 
it, and I hope we can work constructively together to do this. 

It also important for us to have confidence in 
our management information systems. Many of our automated 
systems originated in the 1970s and '80s, and are archaic and 
antiquated, and wholely inadequate for managing our 275,000-plus 
inmates and parolees, much less positioning ourselves to 
effectively conduct business in the 21st Century. We must 
develop a strategy and build the infrastructure and systems 
required for future operations. 

Health care is a major, major issue for the 
community, and is equally or perhaps more challenging within our 

system. Providing appropriate health care to our inmates and 
ensuring proper access to care will be a top priority of 
everyone within this Department. My goal, as optimistic as it 
may sound, is to move the Department from its present reactive 
mode to one of being proactive. I look to the Department to 
take a leadership role in this area, and to someday provide 
health care free of court supervision. 

The vast majority of our inmates want to 
participate in work, school, recreation, and self-help 
programs. There are a limited few who are prone to violence, 
criminality, or gang activities in prison. Controlling and 
reducing prison violence is of the utmost importance. We must 
have the appropriate housing for our most violent inmates to 
protect our staff and inmates, so that the majority of our 
inmates can participate in education and programming. 

We are evaluating new ways for the Department to 
create a continuum of housing and programing incentives to 
encourage good behavior and to deal fairly with the predatory, 
disruptive minority, holding them accountable for their actions. 

We also need to renew our efforts to reintegrate 
offenders into society. We have made some progress in reducing 
caseloads for parole agents, and experienced some outstanding 
successes in local programs. I would like to see an expanded, 
focused, and coordinated effort between our institutions, 
parole, and health care services divisions to connect parolees 
with education, drug treatment, health care, and job training in 
order to achieve a seamless reintegration of parolees back into 
the community. 

It is absolutely critical we develop our future 
leadership. Improved training is an essential ingredient in 
providing staff with the tools they need to do their work. 
Limited resources have impeded the Department's ability to 
conduct training. The lack of sufficient training has, and will 
continue to have, long-term increased costs and compliance 
implications as a result of litigation and inconsistent 
application of policies and procedures if not stemmed. I will 
be emphasizing training programs as a key to a successful future 
for the Department of Corrections. 

Again, I would like to thank you for the 
opportunity to address you. I want to conclude by assuring you 
that I am always open to suggestions, ideas, and constructive 

As an example, I recently sent you a letter 
describing changes that I have directed be made in the 
Department's proposed visiting regulations. These changes were 
primarily in response to oral and written comments presented to 
us by outside stakeholders, including the public, inmate support 
groups, Legislators and legislative staff. I believe these 
changes are responsive to those comments. 

I am confident we can work together closely and 
productively to meet the Department's challenges. Thank you 
very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: About 30 percent of the inmates 
who are near parole receive pre-release instructional programs. 
What can you do to bump those numbers up, given the budgetary 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, we've done some things 
already, and I would like to articulate what those are. 

Over the course of the last year, we have 
standardized the curriculum for pre-release in our 
institutions. At the same time, we have changed the calendar 
process by which we provide for this pre-release training 
program. We had a lot of down time between one curriculum and 
the other beginning, and the other ending. So what we did was, 
we standardized the approach to when we provide these classes to 
maximize the use of the space, as well as to maximize the 
opportunity for inmates -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What are the classes? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: There are three-week classes or 
six-week classes performed in our institutions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I'm asking what's the 
class? What's the program? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: The program involves making the 
inmate aware of the various benefits that might be available to 
them through the Social Security Administration or through the 
Veterans Administration. 

We have training provided to the inmates as it 
relates to their ability to manage their, for example, their 
checking account and their resources. 

We have training that is provided in the area of 
being able to develop a resume and an application process. We 
have training as it relates to doing interviews for purposes of 
job opportunities that might be out there. 

We have speakers that come in from various 

organizations. We deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles as 
it relates to trying to get vehicle permits for the inmates as 
they are paroling so that they can have the opportunity to 
transport themselves from one location to another. 

Essentially, that's the basis of our program. I 
would argue that the basis of that program is not sufficient. 
The program that is provided lasts three weeks prior to you 
going back out into the community. And to do that at that point 
in time, I don't think does a service to the inmates as it 
relates to reintegration back into the community. 

We are exploring some different models. One 
model that we're looking at presently -- and again, in tandem 
with your question, it's not to increase the resource needs of 
the Department of Corrections -- we're looking at a model that 
brings Institutions Division and Paroles together from the 
perspective that, perhaps, the last four to six months prior to 
the parolee going out into the community, we bring parole agents 
into the community and focus our attention during that period of 
time on their reintegration back into the community. It's 
hopeful that this might benefit us, and might provide for more 
success when the inmate goes back out into the community. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you screen the potential 
parolees before you put them in the program, or does everybody 
get to learn how to balance a checkbook, whether they know how 
to do it or not? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, I think you've probably 
hit on the crux of the problem for us to really make and garner 
some major successes in this area. 


The program now is voluntary and not mandatory. 
So, the inmate gives us their indication that they would like to 
participate or not. 

And so, from the perspective that it's not 
mandatory, and I think that's one of the major changes that we 
need to make in this program to really have some great benefits. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But even if it's voluntary, do 
you assess? I mean, it would be kind of a waste of time to 
teach somebody how to balance a checkbook who might be in there 
for embezzlement. 

Do you know what I mean. 
[Laughter . ] 

MR. ALAMEIDA: He might have a pretty good idea, 

I guess 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: They could teach us how to do 

Do they screen them so that they see what it is 
that they might need when they get out, as opposed to just one 
size fits all? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: No, Senator. We don't do a good 
job at that. We do have a one size fits all. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That makes no sense, especially 
if you're short on resources, short on whatever, it doesn't make 
any sense. 

In other words, you ought to find out if they 
know how to balance a checkbook, or if they know something else 
that, you know, I mean, you could probably figure out by just 
looking at -- I was going to call it a resume -- but whatever 

you have about kids. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I wasn't going to say 
that because a rap sheet just tells you what they did. 

But whether they are high school grads, college 
grads, this, that, and the other thing, so you know what they 

Also, if you're putting somebody through 
something that they say, "What's this stuff? I know this 
already," they're going to tune out to the other stuff, and it's 
a very unsuccessful deal. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I would tend to agree with that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're in a position to do 
something about it. 

You mentioned that you were kind of trying to 
train. What are you doing about helping train wardens and 
deputy wardens? 

I think under the latest MOU, they all get to 
retire at age of 25 at 200 percent pay. 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, for us to develop an 
appropriate curriculum for wardens and chief deputy wardens, if 
you follow the process, it requires us to do a job analysis. 
And it's a very arduous task to do that, and we're in the 
process of actually doing a job analysis for chief deputy 
wardens and wardens. 

What that will give us is the knowledge, skills, 
and abilities that are indigenous to performing in those 

positions, from which then will be generated curriculum. 

While we are going through the process of making 
that happen, the training that we are providing presently in our 
system is our management training program. We also have our 
leadership institute. 

We are working with the community boards and 
colleges on a pilot basis to develop a public safety leadership 
program, that we have sent a number of our wardens and executive 
staff to, that are students and who will eventually come back 
and provide instruction to the rest of the Department. 

We are working with the National Institute of 
Corrections, not as much as sending staff to attend their 
training there, but more recently, having them come to the 
state of California and provide training here to a larger group 
of our staff. We get a better bang for our buck from the 
perspective that we are able to reach out and touch a whole lot 
more folks than sending a select few to the National Institute 
of Corrections in Colorado. 

Recently we sent some staff there. There are 
some courses there that are provided for new wardens. And as an 
outgrowth of that course, we recently received in the mail about 
a week ago a resource guide to newly appointed wardens, which we 
have distributed all of our wardens and will be speaking to at 
our future wardens meeting. 

This has some -- this raises some concern to me, 
especially from the perspective of -- and I divert for a moment. 
When I received my copy, no longer being a warden, having not 
had it when I was a warden, I took a bit of time to ransack my 


office to see if there was a resource guide for new directors, 
and I couldn't find one. And there's no training, either. So, 
I guess I'm just out there. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's several times been a 
bill floating around -- I have no idea who sponsored it -- but 
almost every warden had to have at least five years' experience 
as a correctional officer. I don't know whose idea that was. 

Assuming people want to do that, do they have 
courses? You've gone through that, but I mean, what's the 
training to be a warden? You have to be appointed and 
confirmed, and that's really it? Just idle curiosity. Don't 
need a long explanation. 

Are there criteria to be a warden, or is it just 
like the Governor could appoint, and if somebody gets 21 votes 
or confirmed? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Theoretically, the Governor could 
appoint, and if someone gets 21 votes, then you could be a 
warden, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't think they do that. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: No, we don't. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't think that was in the 



SENATOR KARNETTE: Senator Burton, I have a 

Do you mean they have to at least be an 
assistant; don't they? 



SENATOR KARNETTE: They can be anybody? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, you might have somebody 
from another area. In fact, I think what's his name, the head 
of Corrections, Gomez, came out of actually Social Services. 

In fact, I'll just say this, that the wardens 
that at least I think most of the Members of the Committee found 
to be the most impressive actually have been the female wardens. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Very much so. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Which is kind of interesting. 

I just want to get a couple things on health. 
We've been told that the way to get in for dental care is like 
six to twelve months. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I wouldn't discount that 
necessarily, Senator. I think that the Department -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's because of what? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I think we've concentrated our 
efforts on mental health care and more recently on medical 
services in terms of patient care and access. 

I would be remiss if I didn't say to this 
Committee that probably the next biggest challenge we have is 
dental care. And I believe that we're going to be trying to go 
down a road, and I'm hopeful that we're going to go down a road, 
that puts us in front of the curve in this particular area, as 
opposed to behind it, where we are subjected to court 
intervention as it relates to our provisal [sic] of care. 

To that end, and the Committee Members may be 
aware of this, I've directed Health Care Services to reestablish 
the Chief Dentist position in health care to provide oversight 


the Department of Corrections in this particular arena. 

We've also just received the report from the 
dental task group that we're reviewing. We just got it about a 
week ago. And we're going to be establishing a dental task 
group to develop policies and procedures, not dissimilar to the 
way we approach Plata , as it relates to the provisal [sic] of 
medical services for the inmate population. 

I am hopeful that these steps, at least 
initially, will put us in the right perspective in terms of 
taking the right footing towards solving the dental problems 
that we have in the Department of Corrections, and we do have 
problems in that area, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess when you end up getting 
budget cuts in these areas, what priorities does the health, 
whether it's dental health, physical health, or mental health, 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Over the last two years that I've 
been up in Headquarters, Senator, when we've had budget cuts, 
health care services have been exempted, and that's dental as 
well as medical services or mental health services. So, we've 
taken those cuts from the other areas of our department. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess even without the cuts, 
we've had lawsuits. With the cuts, it would have been more? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Last one of the 602 Forms, that 
they're not identified or numbered, how can you track inmate 
appeals through the system to see whether or not they had a 
grievance, and the grievance is either legitimate or not 


legitimate, and has been dealt with up, down, and sideways? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: My recollection of our tracking 
system, and we do have a computer tracking system for appeals, 
we track the inmate appeals by name and by the inmate's number. 
And at the same time, if I'm not mistaken, the institutions give 
each appeal a log number. That log number is another basis by 
which we track the appeal. 

So, I think from those three perspectives, I 
think we have the capability to track appeals based on those 
three fields. So I'm not sure if there's necessarily a problem 
there, Senator. 

And we do have appeals coordinators at each of 
our institutions, for each of the nonhealth care services arena 
and for the health care service arena as well. So, I think we 
have the system in place to deal with inmate appeals. 

I know we've had a backlog in that arena, and I 
would be pleased to report, because of a lot of staff work in 
this particular area, that we are current as it relates to our 
third level appeals for the first time in a while. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have you had a chance to look 
and see what the May Revise did to you? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, I apologize. I know some 
of the aspects of the May Revise. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We'll catch that. 

Did you have any input? If you had to take cuts, 
what made sense? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, I did, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's better than we had. 


[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Although, I guess ultimately, 
we get to decide; don't we? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, you do, Senator. 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: That's right; you do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Do you have a program at Ironwood, a veterans 
organization, or some such program? Can you enlighten me on 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, I'm not fully familiar 
with that program. I'm familiar with some other of our 
institutions . 

Are you talking about for the inmate population? 


MR. ALAMEIDA: We have a number of programs where 
we have our Veterans of Foreign Wars programs. It's not 
dissimilar from a self-help group, where inmates are either 
lifer group or a veterans group meet. It's an opportunity for 
inmates to share experiences and exposures to — 

SENATOR KNIGHT: This one seems to be a 
significant program, over and above, I think, some of the 
others . 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, I'm not fully familiar 
with that program. I'd have to look at it. 


The private prison at Baker. You're familiar 


with that one? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, I am, Senator. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: And the proposals to shut those 
private prisons down? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, I am, Senator. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Do you go along with that? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, at this point, as the 
Director of Corrections, and given the fact that the Governor's 
budget doesn't give me any authority to contract for those 
enterprises beyond June 30th, I don't have any means of 
continuing the contract for those. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Did the budget cut those out? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, they did, Senator. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: So, you're going to close the 
one at Baker. 

What is the impact that'll very on Baker? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I think Senator Burton probably 
said it very aptly, that you get to decide as it relates to the 
review of the budget. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No, he does. 
[Laughter . ] 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you ever thought about 
voting for a budget, we might listen to what you said. 

[Laughter . ] 

MR. ALAMEIDA: There was an action taken on the 
Senate side of the house to restore those facilities back into 
the budget process. I'm sure that that will be part of the 
discussions in terms of the final outcome of that. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


Let me just ask you, I hope they're not true, but 
have heard some rumors circulating about a possible closure of 
the Southern California facility for women, the California 
Institution for Women. 

Is there any merit to these rumors at all? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, I believe those emanated 
out of the Legislative Analyst's Office, who were asking for us 
to give our input as to what the savings would be to the State 
of California were we to do that. 

As the Director of Corrections, there are a host 
of programs there, and a host of issues that, from my 
perspective, doesn't make that a plausible alternative as it 
relates to closure. So, I am not an advocate of that. 

As I understand it, there's nothing in the 
process now that would propose that. 


Let me just ask if you can tell us a little bit 
about the status of the concerns we've had in the Legislature 
about phone calls, the policies for inmate phone calling, and 
the gauging, essentially, of family members and inmates who 
attempt to keep in contact with family members. 

What is your position on this, and what are you 
doing to rectify this concern? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: If my information and my 
understanding is correct, the Department of General Services is 


the agency that's managing this process. My understanding is 
that they recently negotiated an agreement that they signed back 
in February. As a result of that agreement, if I understand it 
correctly, it's supposed to be implemented in June. And at that 
point in time, it would reduce the charges to the users by 25 
percent . 

At the same time, General Services informs me 
that this is a bridging contract, and that the intent of this 
bridging contract is to provide services for a period of time 
while we develop a different system. What's been touted most is 
the PIN debit system, that once it rolls out, with the 
expectation being sometime in the latter part of '04, that it 
would further reduce charges to the users of the telephone 
service . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can I ask a question? In fact, 
I think we've got some GSA people coming up at some time before 
us, but if I call you at home collect, it costs me something. 
If somebody in prison calls me at home collect, it costs like 
three times something. 

I mean, it makes no sense to me. A phone call's 
a phone call, unless we cut a real sweet deal with the people. 
I guess they aren't Pac. Bell phones or something else. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: In response to that, Senator, my 
personal opinion is that I don't believe that we should be 
charging exhorbitant prices for similar types of services. 

SENATOR ROMERO: That's precisely my point as 
well, that we shouldn't be doing this. I think there is a real 
need because, again, especially once the inmate leaves the 


institution, there is going to be a community that one is going 

go back into, and I think we want to encourage, and I would 
hope encourage, that the inmates have contact and opportunity. 
If we have these kinds of pricing policies, that really becomes 
problematic, especially when we take a look at so much of the 
demographics of who is incarcerated. 

Just one last question. I heard from the 
California Correctional Psychologists, they're very interested 
in having a management position, a Chief Psychologist, to have 
policy input. 

What is your position on this? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I met with them sometime ago after 
I was appointed to this position, and they expressed that to me 
as well. 

I told them that I would look into that. In 
looking into it, it's a little bit more of an issue than I 
thought it was originally. Right now, our structure in our 
organization has the psychologists reporting through a Chief 
Psychologist, or a senior psychologist to a Chief Psychiatrist. 

It would require us to reorganize how we do 
business in our health care arena throughout the state. And in 
so doing, it would also require us to seek the approval of DPA, 
and in this instance, because it would be changing a 
classification to a management classification, to go before PERB 
in order to get their approval as well. 

That hasn't deterred our looking at it, but we 
just haven't got around to looking at all facets of it and 
flushing those out yet, Senator. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: The Inspector General found 
that Employee Relations Officers sometimes aren't provided with 
adequate training. 

I was wondering, who evaluates the employees that 
are in the prison with the inmates? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: If we're speaking about the 
Employee Relations Officer, I would subscribe to the Inspector 
General's Report, that we don't do a good job of training. And 
in my opening comments, I made a point -- 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But I'm not talking about a 
program of training. I'm talking about if there's a problem, 
and you know there's a problem somewhere, and a person needs 
some special training, like staff development or something, and 
union probably negotiates that type of thing, I would think. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: No, the Employee Relations Officer 
is a supervisory class in most of our institutions. They're 
generally a lieutenant. 

The training -- and that person usually reports 
directly to the Chief Deputy Warden or the Warden. 

The training that we provide to them is not 
prescribed by the MOU, and it's incumbent upon the Chief Deputy 
and the Warden to seek out appropriate training. 

DPA provides a great deal of training, as does 
the University of California. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But who decides who needs it? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I think, to be honest with you, we 


should decide as a department what is required of all of our 
employees as it relates to training, and we don't do that at the 
moment . 

So, in terms of the IG's Report, they are right 
about we are remiss in that particular area. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: When people are hired on or 
become employees to work with the inmates in whatever capacity, 
they go through some kind of training then, I would think. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: If you're talking about a 
correctional officer, yes, Senator, they do. They go through a 
16-week academy. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Then, if they have problems, 
though, there's no person that evaluates them at any time? They 
just have to have serious problems? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: We have a performance report 
process that is issued to employees on an annual basis that is 
by the supervisor of that employee that assesses their 
performance . 

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I think you are. 

What I'm concerned about is that sometimes people 
don't fit into the slot they're in very well, and perhaps with a 
little help, or maybe moving to another slot, things would 
improve. I mean, most institutions, I think, that happens. 
There's some people don't fit into the slot they're in. And if 
they're moved, things get along better. 

The union doesn't negotiate anything like that? 
And people get extra credit or salary points, or something, for 


taking special classes? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: In the union agreement, there is a 
section that provides for additional compensation for employees 
who go out and receive additional education, either their AA 
Degree or their BS or BA Degree. 

There is a prescribed course of training in the 
union agreement for the rank and file members as part of the 7-K 
Program, and there's 52 hours of training that's provided to 
those employees. 

To the extent that we find employees that aren't 
capable of doing the job or duties assigned, there are methods 
by which we can move the employee to other locations where they 
might better benefit themselves and the organization. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have one other question. 

What about these voluntary groups that come in to 
prisons to do various things? I don't know exactly what they 
do, but I know there are a lot of groups. 

How do you evaluate them? Do you have programs 
for them? Like certain charitable groups want to help out; how 
do they go about that? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Most of those programs are under 
the auspices of our Community Resources Manager in the 
institution, and our Community Resources in Headquarters. 

For the most part, our volunteers are generally 
in the religious area for our Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, 
Muslim, and other types of religious services. 

We also have volunteers that come into the 
educational areas, and other areas of our facility to assist us 


with those programs. Generally, the individuals within the 
area, for example like the chaplain, may come to us and say, "I 
have found a volunteer who'd like to come in and assist me with 
my program." What we do is, we check the individual out to make 
sure that they're able to come into the prison, there isn't any 
history that would prevent them from doing so. 

If they do decide to come in, we put them through 
a training course that gives them similar orientation as we do 
our employees that come to the prison so they know how to act, 
and how to respond, and how to deal with circumstances they 
might be faced with. 

As a general rule, we don't provide them the 
opportunity to be solely alone in terms of what they may be 
doing when they're in the prison setting. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: One last question. 

Who actually is responsible for that training? 
Are you ultimately responsible? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I'm responsible for everything 
that happens in the Department of Corrections, Senator. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Who actually says, this is the 
way you behave under certain circumstances? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: That's part of the orientation 
process, and we do have a prescribed curriculum out there that 
we provide to those individuals. And it's usually provided 
under the auspices of our in-service training manager at each of 
the institutions. But its oversight is provided by our 
Community Resources Unit in Headquarters. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Are educational people 


involved in that, like teachers? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: They may be. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Because I would think they 
would know a little bit about that kind of thing. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How are they doing with the 
chemical dependency and alcoholism? Does it come from the top, 
and you tell each institution they have to do so much? 

I can't remember half the time whether I'm 
talking to Corrections or the CYA, but it was like, we don't 
have a lot of room, and we don't have a lot of money. And 
basically, you know, we have people who come in from the outside 
and do a 12-step program in the cafeteria, or anywhere, any 
time, any day or night. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: We still have in Corrections our 
self-help groups, or our self-help sponsored groups for 
Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous, which I think may 
be what you're referring to, Senator. Those exist at every one 
of our institutions. 

Although we've limited our self-help groups over 
the years, we've maintained those along with a number of 
other -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why do you limit them? What do 
you mean, you limit them? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: We used to have whole host of 
self-help opportunities for inmates. In the course of time, as 
the budget process has affected us, some of those self-help 
groups were no longer retained. We retained the core groups 


such as Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about anger management? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: That's provided as part of the 
curriculum in our Education Department, part of what we do in 
pre-release and reentry. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, three weeks before they get 
out, you get somebody that's mad at the world since he's eight 
years old. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: That's why I said I don't think 
this program is very effective, Senator, the way it's 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You can have anger management 
programs almost the same way you can have AA and NA. I mean, 
there's people that, you know, have gone through it themselves, 
and are inmates themselves, that are doing it. Especially, I 
think, if those who are in, say, domestic violence and things 
like that, because most of the domestic violence workshops, for 
the want of a better word, are facilitated or whatever by former 
batterers . 

I was down at one of the county jails in L.A. 
where, I think, twice a week, it was basically for batterers, 
but it almost seems anger management, where the class was about 
this big. 

I mean, they don't do a hell of a lot else when 
they're in prison that I know about. You've got some job 
opportunities, you've got some this. 

But I would think that within the final six 
months or whatever, and then also maybe as either helpful with 


good time credits, or something, that people do that. 

It's like with the CYA, they used put young kids 
in anger management, and they'd have to wait like seven months 
to get into it. By the time they got in it, they were so God 
damn mad, they wanted to hit the counselor. 

You don't have to respond because I think you get 
it. But I just think that those are easy things, those are 
cheap things. You know, there's probably a fair amount of 
people that are inmates -that really would feel good about doing 
something constructive, helping the others, rather than playing 
chess, or whatever. 

I've five quick questions that you can give quick 
answers to, by Senator Polanco. 

By the way, how is that physical fitness thing 
working out? Are all those correctional guys physically fit? 
Take an exam once, and then if you aren't dead, you're 
physically fit; right? You all are good. 

The IG found, quote, "Needless complexity of the 
employee disciplinary process causes, which then delays your 
ability to take action as a result of such a pain in the neck, " 
these are my words, that like 43 percent of the cases aren't 
even pursued because the time limit expires. 

Let me just give you all five, because they're 
all kind of the same thing, then you can respond. 

"The IG finds that there's no clear guidelines 
for defining the one-year period of investigating alleged 
misconduct and imposing disciplinary action." 

I mean, are you thinking about guidelines? This, 


again, is all the IG stuff. 

"Employee Relation Officers are not provided with 
adequate training." This is back to what Senator Karnette said, 
so they don't quite know how to handle the disciplinary stuff. 

Then, "Most of the employee disciplinary actions 
proceed all the way through settlement and State Personnel Board 
hearings without advice or assistance from legal staff." 

I don't know if they're talking management. I 
would assume that the union has their attorneys there. So, I'm 
not quite sure who they're talking about here, whether or not 
the Department's got staff. 

Then, "CDC has not established policies and 
procedures governing the settlement of employee disciplinary 
actions, and no means of monitoring the evaluating settlement 
process . " 

Therefore, just in a few minutes, what are you 
doing in the rare cases of employee disciplinary actions, or the 
necessity for that? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, when I first came on - 
board as the Director of Corrections, that was one of the areas 
that I identified we needed to focus on. And we've made some 
major strides in that area. 

We have a disciplinary tracking system which we 
put into place, and it is in place now, that incorporates our 
Legal Department, along with our investigative areas of our 
institutions in Headquarters, as well as our Employee Relations 
Officers that track from the culmination of a particular 
investigation to its closure. And since the implementation of 


that tracking system, we haven't been in a situation where we 
haven't been able to take an adverse action where it's warranted 
and missed the time constraints. 

At the same time, under the direction of the 
Chief Deputy for Support in our Department of Corrections, we've 
initiated a task group to look at a number of the issues that 
are mentioned in the IG Report, such as the training that 
Senator Karnette spoke about for the EROs, our policies, 
procedures, and guidelines as it relates to settlements, and a 
host of other things. 

This is an issue that is not only shared by the 
Inspector General's Office; it's shared by the court in Madrid , 
as it relates to the management of our cases in Pelican Bay. 
So, we're responding not only as it relates to IG, but through 
the court. And we are in the process of developing our 
corrective action plan and submitting it to both. 

We've had initial dialogue, and they seem to be 
receptive to our approach at this point in time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family with 

MR. ALAMEIDA: No, Senator. My wife's at 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One of the things, among 
others, but I do want to commend you for responding to the 
public comments on those proposed regulations. From whence they 
came, I don't know. But I think the fact that several of the 
egregious ones were eliminated, and I think that the others were 
modified, they solve whatever purpose they were supposed to 


solve. They sort of make sense, and I don't think they're 
overly burdensome. 

Where did they come from originally? Did you 
inherit those? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Well, I can't say I fully 
inherited them. They came out of Institutions Division, and I 
was a member of Institutions Division. 

But I think in the final analysis, I think we're 
on the right track now. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. 

MR. MABRY: Good afternoon, Senator Burton and 
Rules Committee Members, and the appointments secretary, 
Sabelhaus . 

My name is Roy Mabry, representing the 
Association of Black Correctional Workers. I'm here fully in 
support for confirmation of Director Alameida. 

Also, I have several of my board members. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They can stand. 

MR. MABRY: They'll be happy, because I'm one 
more term in office, and I'm going to be turning this over to 
somebody else. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: As long as I'm here, do you 
want me to ask, is yours a full-time job, or do you have to do 
duty in the prison, too? 

MR. MABRY: You've got to do both. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Start wearing a hat, and you 
won't have to do that. 

[Laughter. ] 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you have your board 
members stand, please, so we know who we're going to be dealing 
with after we say good-bye to you. 

MR. MABRY: That's still four years to go. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

MR. MABRY: Thank you. 

Director Alameida, congratulations, up on the 
Senators' blessings. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Next witness in support, 
briefly please. 

MS. AGUILLERA-MARRERO: Good afternoon. Suzanna 
Aguillera-Marrero. They call me Sam for short, and I'm the 
Association President for the Chicano Correctional Workers 

First of all, let me thank you for the privilege 
of coming before you, such a distinguish panel. 

Our organization, all 2400 members, voted 
unanimously at our last Board of Directors to support 
Mr. Alameida. We've look at his resume, and we've had many 
members that have worked for him at the institutional level. 
And we're honored to be here today in his support, and hope that 
you do the same. 

Thank you for your time. 



MR. MULLEN: My name is Rod Mullen. I'm the 
President and Chief Executive Office of Amity Foundation. We're 
a service provider. We've been providing in-prison substance 


abuse treatment services for the Department of Corrections for 
12 years. 

I think that the position that Mr. Alameida has 
requires some very unusual talents. It requires extensive 
knowledge of CDC. It requires a tremendous ability to manage, 
because this is a gigantic department, as you all know, and it 
also really requires tremendous leadership. Management doesn't 
necessarily mean leadership, as we know. I'm really convinced, 
after meeting with the Director, both as a member of a provider 
group and with him individually, that we are fortunate in having 
him in that position. And I think he's going to do a tremendous 
job for the Department of Corrections and for the State of 
California . 

I think one of the things that ' s happened in the 
last, you know, 10, 15 years is, we have some evidence that one 
of the best ways of really ensuring public safety is to provide 
substance abuse services within the institutions with 
after-care. Mr. Alameida fully supports that, and it's very 
critical that at the top of this organization, there is that 
kind of support, because in many cases, you know, the Department 
of Corrections is really sort of a misnomer. It doesn't really 
correct. It houses. It provides short-term public safety. But 
when 66 percent of our folks come back, of our new admissions to 
Corrections are really not new admissions; they're coming there 
for the second, or third, or fourth time, to really get 
long-term public safety, we really need to correct. And that 
means we need to provide these intensive services. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're in support? 


MR. MULLEN: I am very much in support. 

Thank you very much. 


MR. GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Senate 
Rules Committee, my name is Bill Garcia. I'm the State Advisor 
for the American GI Forum. 

The GI Forum is a state and national 
organization. We have members throughout various chapters 
across the country. 

Our membership is very familiar with the 
important work that this Committee does. We have a lot of 
respect for you and your Committee. We do not take lightly 
coming here and testifying, either for or against an 
appointment. At times, some folks with dubious backgrounds 
squeak past this Committee, but very rarely. And when they do, 
I'm sure you people identify them and take care of the problem. 

I'm here today to testify not only for the 
American GI Forum, but also for the American Mexican War 
Mothers. The President asked me to speak. She could not be 
here; she had a doctor's appointment. And also for CAFE de 
California. It's an employee organization, statewide, and the 
President asked me to speak on his behalf. He's tied up in 
Budget Committee having to do with the Oracle problem. And so, 
I said I would do that for him. 

We met with Mr. Alameida extensively during the 
past couple of months. We've done some research with our folks 
that are in the prisons, including Gordon Boranian, Norine 
Blonian, a number of other people that we have a lot of 


confidence in. We've not heard anything disparaging or 
discouraging about Mr. Alameida's performance. 

He has come up through the ranks. He's sat in 
various chairs throughout his tenure at the Department of 

orrections. He brings a wealth of experience to this 
position. I've heard nothing but good things about his 
sensitivity and compassion for the people that he works for and 
with . 

In talking about veterans at the institutions, it 
was surprising to me, Senator, that when I visited Folsom State 
Prison, for example, they have a VFW post there that's been 
established.' Many of the veterans that get out of the military 
become homeless, and as a result, get into other types of 
problems and end up incarcerated. And there are so many 
programs that could be helpful to these veterans in particular, 
and I can think of no better way than to get mentors from the 
veteran community to come out to those prisons and help in some 
respect . 

I hope that Mr. Alameida -- and I see he's taking 
notes, so I'm sure that he'll contact us to see how we might be 
able to assist in that venue. 

But I just want to give, on behalf of these 
organizations, I want to give him our wholehearted support, and 
we hope that you folks will see fit to appoint him permanently. 

Thank you very much. 


MR. SINGH: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dar Singh. 
I am the Vice Chairman of Prison Industry Authority. 


I don't know Mr. Alameida a long time, but since 
he is here at Department of Corrections, and he is doing a 
wonderful job, especially in the inmate employability program 
and all the prison industries. 

So, I support him wholeheartedly. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you, Dar. 


MR. BAUTISTA: Good afternoon. My name is Marc 
Bautista. I work at Central California Women's Facility in 
Chowchilla, California. I'm also one of the four statewide 
officers. I represent 92,000 state workers throughout the State 
of California, And 13,000 of our members work for the Department 
of Corrections. 

I'm. here today to give our support on behalf of 
the 13,000 members whom we represent. Mr. Alameida has had an 
opportunity, and we appreciate his time that he spent with us, 
where he discussed some of the concerns that our members had 
conveyed to us, and some of the issues that we addressed. And 
he supported us, and to ensuring all of our members are treated 
with dignity and respect, and that all are created equally -- I 
mean treated equally. And that there would be a respect for the 
contract that our members have with the State of California. 

We are quite encouraged with Mr. Alameida 
understanding the concerns of our members being held to the 
rules of POBOR, and yet at the same time, too, not being given 
actually some of the rights. He was committed to meet with our 
union and discuss these issues, and, you know, hopefully 
something that will work for both of us. 


On that, we would like to fully support 
Mr. Alameida, and we look forward to working together with 
Mr. Alameida to provide the very best services for the people of 
this great state. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Next . 

MR. GARCIA: Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my 
name is Jesse Garcia. I'm- the Vice President of the National 
Latino Peace Officers Association here in Sacramento. This is 
David Armendariz, a member assisting me here, I think. 

We are a national but also a statewide 
organization. We have 25 chapters in California of law 
enforcement professionals, a couple thousand members. 

At our last board meeting, each chapter 
unanimously voted to support Mr. Edward Alameida. He is a 
person that we followed his career. He is a hard worker and a 
person of high integrity. And for this reason, we support 
Mr. Alameida for confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Next . 

MR. TATUM: Senator Burton and Members of the 
Committee, my name is Richard Tatum. I'm the State President of 
the California Correctional Supervisors Organization. 

We've worked with Mr. Alameida for sometime now, 
when he was a warden at Duel Vocational Institution and while 
he's been the Acting Director. 

We think that Mr. Alameida, through his 


knowledge, his honesty, and his integrity is the type of person 
that we want to be the Director of Corrections. 

Thank you. 



MR. BORANIAN: Yes, my name is Gordon Boranian, 
and I'm a member of the American GI Forum. I'm also a prison 
educator and sometime librarian out here at New Folsom. 

I just want to applaud Mr. Alameida on his 
concern and sensitivity to the reentry or pre-release programs 
and the need for more education in the institutions. This is a 
very valuable thing. 

Thank you. 


Witnesses in opposition. 

MS. BIRD: Senator Burton and honorable Committee 
Members, my name is Cayenne Bird. I'm Director of the UNION, 
United for. No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect. 

You gave us, this Committee gave us, a 
representative from CDC and the Legislature on January 6th, 
1999. And we'd like to tell you that things are better now than 
they were then, but not that much better. 

And I'm representing 6,000 members who are 
doctors, teachers, nurses, social workers, people in the helping 
professions. I've been handling complaints from all 33 prisons 
as a volunteer for almost five years, and also jails. And we've 
been very active and involved in all of these issues that you've 
been discussing here today. 


We've taken a very strong position on the 
visiting proposal, and we were part of that, just so you know 
who we are. 

I have a statement that our board has asked me to 
present. With your permission, I'd like to read it. 


MS. BIRD: We would like to point out that 
Mr. Alameida has thus far been unable to resolve some very 
serious issues that we believe endanger the public safety. It 
is understood, because I've known all of the large number of CDC 
directors coming through the past few years, that he's inherited 
a number of these problems, just so I make that very clear. But 
the goal of everyone should be to return those we have taken 
captive to their communities in much better shape than before 

Prisons are, to us, the humanitarians of 
California, it's a practice from the dark ages, and there are no 
statistics anywhere to support them as actual solution or 
prevention to crime. We understand that about 30 percent of the 
prisoners are violent; the other 70 percent are nonviolent. And 
we do understand that certain members of our society need to be 
removed, but our California Legislature and Governor has turned 
the human bondage industry into the largest state product, and 
we need a responsible CDC Director. 

Mr. Alameida has allowed the practice of cruel 
and unusual punishment in the form of lockdown to be accepted by 
the Legislature and everyone else as business as usual. The 
UNION would like to emphatically state that locking people in 


cages no larger than the size of a bathroom with another person 
who may be mentally ill for months and years at a time is just 
wrong. Isolation is torture, as any psychiatrist with proper 
credentials will agree. This practice is not at all beneficial 
to the public safety. 

One example of a person who was tortured in 
prison and then returned to his community such sicker was 
Michael Bowers, who parked his truck in the Capitol's parlor. 

I've read the cases over the years. His prison 
history, his medical records, and that is a disgrace. I've been 
a California journalist for 35 years, a mother and a 
grandmother. It is no surprise to me that this young man was 
released far worse than when he was incarcerated on a DUI as a 
teen. This is quite a story, and I intend to write it. 

If you need evidence of these statements, just 
look at the high rate of recidivism. Most correctional 
institutions have four separate facilities: A, B, C, and 
minimum camp. If there's an incident on one of these 
facilities, even though they're very much separated, all four 
are locked down. This is a terrible policy, one we feel is 
solely designed to make the guards' job easier. 

Guards get time-and-a-half overtime pay during 
periods of lockdown. Actually, we feel they should be paid less 
instead of more, because their jobs become much easier. At a 
time when the state is bankrupt, it makes no sense to keep this 
policy in force. What it does is encourage correctional 
officers to cause lockdown, create disturbances, and this 
attitude of punishment instead of healing permeates every layer 


of the California Department of Corrections. Callousness and 
inhumanity begins at the top. 

These isolation practices are destroying the 
minds of people who may be in for a very minor crime. We know 
that 70 percent fall into the nonviolent category, as I stated, 
and they shouldn't be in prison at all. There are so many 
alternatives sentencing methods that do create actual healing, 
and do contribute to the public safety, that do work. This 
would include prevention, education, rehabilitation, 
strengthening and encouraging those who have made a mistake. Too 
little of these actual solutions to crime is happening under 
Mr. Alameida's management so far. 

There is no regard for the mentally ill in 
California's prisons. When Reagan closed the prisons -- the 
mental hospitals, they all went to prison. So, we have them 
carelessly double-celled. 

There are some 50 people a month dying, many more 

I have six filing cabinets full of letters of 
complaint. I'm right on the front line with all of this. We do 
get the complaints from the families, and from clergy, and other 
people who are part of our group, and put them out in a daily 
newsletter everyday. I'm Writer One, and I do send them to 
several Members of the Legislature. And so, these things can be 
documented in detail if you need that. 

Our professionals have observed that practices 
such as lockdown are creating more mental illness than they're 
curing. During lockdown, the inmates are cell fed. They lose 


all the privileges: yard visits; canteen; phone calls; medical 
and dental visits. They can't go to their jobs or have access 
to the legal library. They are cut off from everyone to an 
inhumane degree. 

And we're not talking about a day or two here and 
there. Pelican Bay has been on lockdown for two-and-a-half 
years. We're talking about long periods because one person in 
one of the four facilities committed an incident. And it might 
even have been a mentally ill person. And they don't follow 
rules very well, and so the whole prison goes into this horrible 

They are all doing it, and they're all getting 
away with it, and this has been going on before Mr. Alameida. 
They're allowed a shower every third day. They're handcuffed, 
escorted to the shower, uncuffed in the shower, and treated as 
if they're animals. This abuse makes even the most model 
prisoners sullen and grouchy; it makes them depressed and 
distraught . 

The inmates turn in slips to see doctors and 
dentists, but only emergencies are allowed during lockdown. We 
have former CDC employees who are members of our group who have 
described these things to me in detail. And we have some current 
members who are guiet but sources. We have spies all over the 
prisons because we're very large. So, I feel that I speak with 
authority on these conditions. 

We have the captain of each facility in charge of 
allowing a few to trickle down for the most minor treatments, to 
doctors and dentists during these lockdown emergencies. And we 


are spending a lot of tax dollars on fully staffed clinics with 
very few inmates being treated for months and months at a time. 

This has just been -- the inmates are wondering, 
why am I locked up? What did I do? The person who committed 
the offense should be the only ones held responsible, not the 
whole prison population, because that means that lockdown never 
ends. And it seems that it never does end. This is at all the 
prisons . 

The medical people are laughing at the inmates 
who insist on being seen through numerous appointment slip 
requests. Some of the MTAs out at New Folsom are throwing the 
medication at the inmates as they walk past their cells while 
delivering pills in the morning. That's where four guards were 
recently stabbed. Is it any wonder that, you know, when they 
get out, they're angry, they're violent? 

You treat a person as an animal, and they'll 
respond in kind every time. 

The officers love the lockdown. They have a lot 
of time, no inmates to supervise, no yard to watch. The inmates 
are kept in their cells 24 hours a day until lockdown is over; 
sometimes it's 23 hours with another person, a room the size of 
a bathroom. 

The guards get paid overtime for cell searching, 
another safety rule that's been perverted into terrorizing and 
psychologically intimidating inmates. Just constantly turning 
their stuff over. 

What purpose does this huge expense and cruelty 
serve? The people who committed offenses should be removed. 


There are other issues, but I'm just going to 
briefly mention them. These burning topics are likely to result 
in millions of dollars in lawsuits filed by our people which 
will nullify any proposed budget cut, if it comes to that. 
We've filed several, such as the Eddie Dillard , "bootie bandit", 
as the Stephanie Hardy death at Chowchilla. We've filed a lot 
of lawsuits; there's millions of dollars. They're posted at our 
website in case anyone ever just wants to add it all up. 

It's just a shame that we have to file lawsuits 
to have people act like good Christians, or whatever their 
religion is. There's no religion that promotes this inhumanity. 
And it's just from unbearable incompetence. 

The CDC Director must take into toe his 
unbearably incompetent staff. I would fire them all. I mean, I 
just can't believe some of the terrible reports that I get. It's 
unthinkable to me and to others. 

The ambulance taking two and three hours to 
arrive. The day that Stephanie Hardy died, another visitor died 
right there on the lawn in front of the whole visiting room. 
They didn't have any sort of defibrillators. And I know that 
we've made strides with our fight for medical neglect, but why 
does it always have to result in a lawsuit? Why can't we just 
say it, and then it gets resolved? 

Our ombudsman -- our representative is Ken 
Hurdle. And I really like him. He tries, but I don't think 
that the Inspector General's Office has the teeth that it needs 
to have, because I don't see, you know, resolution. There needs 
to be much more teeth in that particular office. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think we've got to have the 
gist of that, because we have to get, unfortunately, to another 
budget thing. 

MS. BIRD: I'll try to wrap it up. 

We're very upset about the -- we're still having 
the denied surgeries, no dental care except for pulling the 
teeth. The clinics are now going to be licensed, so we have a 
victory there, but that needs to happen sooner rather than 

No training the guards in basic first aid is 
killing people daily. MTAs who are really guards violates the 
Hippocratic Oath of medicine. We shouldn't have that position 

We would just like to see the press access to the 
prisoners. We feel that banning the press is a violation of the 
First Amendment. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The Legislature's three times 
passed that, and the Governor's three times vetoed it. Not much 
we can do. 

MS. BIRD: I know where it's coming from, but I 
do want to just put it on the record. 

I'm very well aware of the origination of a lot 
of the problems, but somebody has to voice these things. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I understand. 

MS. BIRD: We feel that we need a compassionate 
balance of the CDC Director as a requisite for this position, 
and we would like to see Mr. Alameida stand up to Governor Davis 
for denying the proper budget. Just say, "There's too many 


people in prison." 

We'd have no right to be putting this many people 
in prison if we can't provide for them, their health, their 
basics. We haven't had a raise in the food budget in 15 years, 
$2.15 a day. 

People aren't coming out better. They're coming 
out much worse. We feel that compassionate release should be 
high on the agenda, and we want him to stand up and refuse to 
allow people to be mistreated, or to die, over the fact that we 
just have too many people in prison. 

And it'll take courage to do that, but courage is 
needed here. We're destroying lives, and we as taxpayers did 
not commission our government to destroy lives. 

All right. I'm waiting to see the visiting 
regulations. We do have a lawsuit planned if those aren't 
satisfactory to us. I haven't seen them yet. No one sent me a 
copy. I think we made a strong statement there that day. 

We wish that we didn't have to be, you know, 
threatening lawsuits and filing lawsuits, but when we're nice, 
nobody listens. We don't get any results. So, I don't know 
what to do about that. We just don't get, you know, the 
interaction that we need to get. 

And it isn't because Ken is poor. It's just 
because whatever -- they just lie to him and say, well, that's 
not right, and this isn't really happening. And then there's 
all kinds of court. 

The inmates complaints are not respected. 
There's retribution if they complain, if they file their various 


slips. There's retribution to them for telling on the guards. 
And the courts aren't very just. The CDC processes, they're 
adding time. 

I could just sit here and go on, but I won't. 
's out of control, it's out of control, and we know that this 
industry is more important than people. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have that, your 
statement? I would like that. If you're finished, I'd like to 
have that. 

MS. BIRD: Okay, and I've given it to Nettie 
already, and she's very helpful, I might mention. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I think your statement was more 
than this. This one's two-and-a-half pages. 

MS. BIRD: No, no. It was pretty much it. I 
just added a couple of sentences. Just a couple of sentences 
about the food. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is the high point of the 

MS. BIRD: Yes. I could have done a lot, but we 
wanted to focus on lockdown because it's just out of control. 


MS. BIRD: Too much. And the time-and-a-half of 
that, I have no idea how much that's totaling, but we think the 
pay should actually be lowered for lockdown, and that would stop 
this, you know, purposeful creating of incidents. 

So, that's it. The psychological intimidation, 
making everybody sick. We need to get a different attitude of 


Thank you for allowing me to speak. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I would say that 
Mr. Alameida, at least his appearance here, has been a lot more 
refreshing to me than appearances we've had by some of the other 
directors and some of the people that are involved. So, I see 
some changes. I think, one, you can't do a hell of a lot 
without money, and the guy controlling the money isn't the guy 
sitting next to you. 

MS. BIRD: That's right. But you've got to stand 
up to him, and you've got to say, "You know, medical neglect is 
murder. " 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then you'll end up with Captain 
Queeg or Captain Muncie. 

MS. BIRD: Well, I understand that, but — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: For those of us who have seen 
Brute Force . Did you ever see Brute Force ? 

MS. BIRD: No. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Go to your video, get Brute 
Force , an old prison movie in the ' 40s, but there was a nice, 
old warden. And then when he died, Captain Muncie took over the 
prison. He was not a nice man. 

MS. BIRD: I understand that there has to be 
control . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I'm talking about, stand up 
to the Governor a couple times and -- 

MS. BIRD: I'd like to be there on Judgment Day. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: A lot of us would. 
[Laughter . ] 


MS. BIRD: I hope that I'm the reporter that 
gets to cover it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you testifying, ma'am? 

MS. BIRD: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

MS. VANNATTER: My name is Lanie Vannatter, also 
A.J. Vannatter. 

Mr. Alameida, I don't know if you've received any 
of my many letters yet, but I'm considered a PIA; that's a Pain 
in the hindquarters put politely. 

I'm one of your failures. I am a former CDC 
officer, and I'm your failure because the people that drove me 
literally insane remain to do that to other people, while I was 
screaming for help. So, I made a choice, and my choice was the 
other side of the fence. Strange choice, but I'm known for 
right angles. 

My concerns are not quite the same as Ms. Bird's. 
Number one, I understand that lockdowns are not a period to sit 
on your hindquarters and suck your thumb. That means you do all 
the work. You clean it up. You have to shower. You have to 
feed. You've got to clean up after feeding. I know how much 
work is involved because I did it. 

I do know that the Department of Corrections is a 
prisoner to CCPOA, and it's been sold by the Governor. I state 
pretty much what I feel and what I think at any time. Not known 
for moderation. A little bit of a hothead, which I will admit 
as well, which -- Senator Burton, I absolutely every time I see 
you on television, my heart takes a lift because I love the way 


you just say it the way it is. 

What I'm concerned about is that you do not seem 
to have control of your own wardens and prisons. Going back to, 
of all things, visiting, proposed regulations, they are still 
not viewed in a lot of prisons, including California Medical 

And when I questioned why, I was told, well 
they've got to be in a glass case like the visiting rules, and 
we don't have the case done. 

And I said, do you understand there was a memo 
directly from the Director that these were to be put up? 

Oh, yeah. We're going to get to it. 

And that's kind of the attitude. The attitude 
was also, well, we get a lot of memos from the Director's 
office; we don't necessarily pay attention to them. 

Sir, I know that you have huge job ahead of you 
regaining control of the prisons over CCPOA. That's why I'm no 
longer a CDC officer. 

And I will tell you this. It was a job that I 
loved like I've loved nothing in my life. I actually got up at 
4:30 in the morning willingly, and for me, that's really 
unusual. I don't do that for fish. 

The kind of help that I needed, and that people 
knew I needed, I wasn't getting. So, I simply lost my mind. I 
have spent -- I spent a year, almost a full year, not knowing 
who I was, where I was, or who my family was. I have fought to 
come out of that. It took a psychiatrist, and a counselor, and 
medication. Well, I'm out of it, and now I do remember, and I 


do figh* . 

I believe in the Department of Corrections, 
because without laws, and without Corrections, we do not have a 
society. We live in a war zone. I don't want to live in a war 
zone . 

You have not been very responsive to any group 
other than the Family Council, which, thank God, you were at 
least -- they're at least in meeting with you. But there are a 
lot of other groups, including many I belong to, and my 
organization is Families of Prisoners. We are creating an 
umbrella organization now, that we are pulling in people from 
all over the state, and our numbers are going into the 
thousands. People who are willing to speak up and talk about 
what's wrong, not attack the officers for doing their job. 

I understand lockups. Yes, the lockdowns are 
going on far too long. I understand why you have to take the 
prisoners out in handcuffs, and then take them out of the 
handcuffs in the shower. I've been there when the fights 
happened. I've been there when people's throats were slit. I 
understand the necessary. 

But I also understand that when you put two human 
beings in the amount of space that it would be illegal to put 
one badger in by federal law, you're going to have bigger 
problems . 

Yes, there is NA and Alcoholics Anonymous 
inside. And there are a few other groups, but most of them are 
actually in the lower levels. The higher levels, where they're 
desperately needed don't have them anymore. 


The jobs are very scarce, and this heart smart 
diet that the prisons are instituting are leaving the prisoners 
hungry, unless they have someone outside to provide them with 
money for canteen and with packages. And I can tell you that I 
spend approximately $300 every three months on those packages. 
That they're hungry. 

When men are hungry, when they're bored, these 
people don't have good impulse control. I know them well. I am 
engaged to one of them. He's learned, in 2 4 years, to have 
great impulse control. If you learn nothing else, you decide 
you really don't want to stay on the wrong side of that. 

But they're hungry. The food quality start out 
good, but we all know that God sent food, and the Devil sent the 
cooks. I've eaten the food. I know that everything's cooked 
out of it. 

Something needs to change. You, sir, need to be 
more responsive to prisoners themselves, to the guards that need 
help. And they're not guards; they're correctional officers. 
The guards are the ones who don't obey the laws. 

But when you get stuck in a situation where 
you're trying to do what the law says, and everybody around you 
is tell you not to do what the law says, and if you don't do 
what the law says you're going to get sued, and the Department 
says, "Oh well, that's your problem," and nobody's listening 
while you're crying for help, then there's a problem. 

I ask you to please consider meeting with other 
groups of visitors. You, sir, did not listen to the Family 
Council either when they gave you their input on the proposed 


visiting changes. They were unbelievable from the point of an 
officer. I couldn't understand them from the point of a 
visitor. I was more than a little upset. 

So, I ask you not to deny his confirmation, but 
simply to postpone it. Let's see if he can stand up to CCPOA. 
Let's see if he is more willing to listen to visitors and family 
members who are trying to explain to him what we know is going 

Thank you very much, sir. I think that probably 
you're going to make an excellent Director. I just ask that we 
have some time to understand whether or not you are going to 
address these issues. 

Thank you very much. 


I just have a couple questions to Mr. Alameida. 

Respectfully, we have put this thing over awhile. 
The hearing was scheduled earlier, and it's not my intention to 
do that . 

Is really the food budget $2.30 a day? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: It's $2.45. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What the hell can you get for 

MR. ALAMEIDA: It's not -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Even if you buy in bulk? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Yes, we do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, I said, even if you did. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: We do a number of things in terms 
of the purchase. We also have opportunity buys with various 


corporations as it relates to our food budget. We also have -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't care how you slice it. 
How the hell can you feed anybody on 2.45 a day? I mean, unless 
you're the guy that set that thing. 

No matter what you get in bulk, no matter what it 
is, how the hell can you do it, forgetting whoever 's cooking 
it? I mean, 2.45 a day, you could probably do Special K and 
milk three meals, which actually probably wouldn't be bad for 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Senator, having been a warden at 
an institution and managed as an AW Business Services the food 
budget, and having ate the meals at the institution because part 
of my responsibility was to ensure that the meal was edible, and 
that it was sufficient to provide for the health of the inmates 
that we had at the facility, we can do quite a bit with $2.45 a 

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't look at 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I just think you ought to look 
at it. I'd like to see, like they used to do in the Army, but 
I'd just like to see a week's menu. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: I'll be glad to provide that, 
Senator . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Also, on the lockdown, what 
does it take to precipitate a lockdown? One guy doing 
something? Two people doing something? Or, one guy doing 
something, but it looks like all hell's going to break lose. 

Like, two people screw up, and the whole wing, or 


something, is locked down? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Not generally speaking. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What would be the mildest thing 
that precipitated it? I could see like a full thing, gang beef 
in the mess hall doing it. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Generally speaking, when we go on 
lockdown, it's because there's been a violent act in which 
there's weapons that have been involved, and there's been 
serious injury. More likely that has been between two groups, 
two ethnicities or two gang groups. 

Those are generally the reasons that precipitate 
a lockdown while we make a determination, and get enough 
intelligence, to know that it's not going to be pervasive 
throughout the institution. 

Our practices are not generally to lock down the 
entire institution for lengths of time when various facilities 
haven't been affected, unless we have information that would 
give us cause to be concerned for the safety of the inmates and 
for the staff that this may be going into B Facility or into C 
Facility, when it emanated out of A Facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If you decide to lock it down, 
is it an automatic 24-hour lockdown, or just lock down until you 
see what's going on? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Generally, we lock it down until 
such time as we can do interviews of the affected groups. If it 
requires that we do searches, that we do searches as well, 
because part of locking a facility down is also managing how 
you're going to unlock the facility in such a safe manner that 


you don't create an incident that might affect the inmates or 
the staff. 

So, there's a whole process we go through. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If there's a lockdown, it's 
automatically time-and-a-half? Did I hear that? 

MR. ALAMEIDA: No, that's not the case. Having 
worked for -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right. I thought I heard 

Well, I think, one, I'm a great believer in 
literacy in the prisons. My brother did 20 years teaching at 
San Quentin. 

I think the prep for people getting out is 
important. As you' said, three weeks doesn't make much sense at 
all, or four weeks. They probably should do it earlier, and 
they ought to find out what they need. 

And I would think that, again, you ought to check 
to see, I!m sure there 're AA and NA, anger management, and 
things of that sort. 

And again, I think that the visiting system is 
very important, because, you know, when somebody figures there's 
no hope, and there's nothing to lose, and who cares, then it 
gets dangerous, I think, for the guards. It's like, we used to 
have Legislators that wanted to be tough on crime. And even a 
Congressional guard said some of their ideas were kind of 
stupid, because if these guys really had nothing to lose, then 
they would really do something. 

We want to help you do the job. We're going to 


be watching. I think it would be helpful if, in fact, that 
you've got directives, and wardens are disobeying them, that you 
ought to know that, and I think we ought to know that, and I 
think Secretary Presley ought to know that, because I think 
that's how it goes. It goes from Davis, to Presley, to you, to 
them. Wardens are not supposed to necessarily, and they have to 
have some flexibility, but other than that, I don't know. 

I'll move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations. 

MR. ALAMEIDA: Thank you very much. 

[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

2:55 P.M. ] 

— 00O00— 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
^ / day of / -yicz^ , 2002 



<- 7 


Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.25 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 455-R when ordering. 


JVO • IS" 





OCT - 2 2002 



ROOM 113 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2002 
1:36 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2 02 
1:36 P.M. 

Reported by: 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NETTIE SABELHAUS, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






MARTIN GALLEGOS, D.C., Patient Advocate 
Department of Managed Health Care 

Health Access/SEIU 


Congress of California Seniors and OWL 


California Labor Federation 


California Medical Association 


California Children's Hospital Association 



Western Center for Law and Poverty 

Folsom State Prison 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

Folsom Chapter, CCPOA 




California Institution for Women, Corona 


CIW Chapter XV, CCSO 


RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 


High Desert State Prison, Susanville 




Proceedings 1 

Governor ' s Appointees : 

MARTIN GALLEGOS, D.C., Patient Advocate 

Department of Managed Health Care 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Goals and Objectives 2 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Consumers Don't Know Where to Go for 

Information 4 

Study and Options Proposed by 

CLARK KELSO, McGeorge Law School 4 

Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Any Changes Need to Come from Legislature 6 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Consumer Access to Financial Solvency of 
Providers 7 

Position Taken by Fiscal Solvency 

Standards Board 8 

Creation of Position as Patient 

Advocate; Original View Vs. Reality 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Recent Court Decision re: Information on 
Provider Financial Solvency 10 

Responses from BETH CAPELL, Health Access 11 


Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Constituent Calls 11 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Need for Communication between Agencies 12 

Motion to Confirm 14 



Health Access 15 


Congress of California Seniors, OWL 15 


California Labor Federation 15 


California Medical Association 15 


California Children's Hospital Association 

Hemophilia Council of California 15 


Western Center on Law and Poverty 15 

Committee Action 16 


Folsom State Prison 16 

Background and Experience 16 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Female Warden in Male Bastion 17 

Pre-release Program 18 

Number of Inmate Participants in 

Pre-release Program at Folsom 19 


Gang Violence at Prison 2 

Keeping Gangs Out of Folsom Prison 21 

Questions by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Older Prisoners at Folsom Account for 

Less Gang Activity 22 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Protection of "Snitches" 22 

Handling of Complaints re: Visiting 

Procedures 24 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Food Budget at $2 .45 Per Inmate 25 

Menus and Meal Plans 26 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Special Foods for Guards and Employees 2 8 

Food Budget 2 9 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Hot Meals and Hard Work 3 

Veterans Program at Ironwood 3 


ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 31 

Also in Support of Other Two 

Warden Appointees Appearing Today 32 


Chicano Correctional Workers Association 32 


OLIVER ACUNA, Chairperson 

Folsom Chapter, CCPOA 3 3 


UNION 3 3 



Motion to Confirm 3 6 

Committee Action 3 7 


California Institution for Women, Corona 37 

Background and Experience 3 7 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re : 

Unique Challenges and Responsibilities in 
All-Female Institution 38 

Access to Health Care and Feminine 

Hygiene Products 3 9 

Educational Programs to Boost Reading 

Levels of Inmates 4 

Questions by SENATOR KNIGHT re: 

Gang Problems in Women' s Institutions 42 

Similar Problems 42 

Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Origination Location of Inmates 42 

Location Makes Visiting Easier on 

Families 43 

Substance Abuse Programs 4 3 

VI 11 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Prison's Invitation to Board of Prison 

Terms to Address Inmates 44 

Inmate Lifers that Fall in Battered 

Women Category 4 5 

Giving Hope to Inmates 4 6 



CSEA, Correctional Institutions Committee 47 

RICHARD VILLANUEVA, Chapter President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 48 

CUBBY MUNERLYN, Correctional Guard 

CIW, Corona 4 8 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 4 9 



UNION 4 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Testimony to Budget, Sub. 4, Funding 

Corrections and Prisons 51 

Suggestion to Contact SENATOR 


Motion to Confirm 54 

Committee Action 54 


High Desert State Prison, Susanville 54 

Background and Experience 54 


Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Deuel Vocational Institutoin 55 

Number of Lockdowns at High Desert 56 

Longest Lockdown at Facility B 57 

Time Needed for Searches and 

Investigation 58 

Steps to Prevent Lockdowns 60 

Anger Management Courses 61 

Problem Filling Vacancies in 

Health Care Staff 61 

Possibility of Offering Differentials to 

Attract Health Care Professionals 62 

Pre-release Program 63 

Statements by SENATOR JOHNSON re: 

Need for Much Longer Pre-release Programs 64 

Length of Time Needed to Search after 

Incidents 65 

Possible Need to Modify Prison Facilities 65 

Questions by SENATOR ROMERO re: 

Services Inmates Can Access during 

Lockdowns 65 

Proposal to Change the Way Facility 

Is Unlocked after Lockdown Situation 66 

Progress in Pilot Program 69 

Budgetary Concerns with New Unlock 

Process 69 


Questions by SENATOR KARNETTE re: 

Negotiation for Possible Differentials to 
Attract Health Care Professionals 70 

Origination Locale of Inmates 71 

Any Psychological Studies of Hard 

Core Violent Inmates 71 

Visitors and Hard Core Inmates 72 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Determination of Placing Inmates at 

Susanville 73 

Possibility of More Recidivism Due to 

Lack of Visitation 73 


RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 74 



UNION 7 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN BURTON re: 

Precipitation of Lockdown Incident 78 

Extreme Violence and Lockdowns 8 

Lack of Citrus Fruits in Diet 82 

Arrangement of Meeting with Director of 
Corrections and SECRETARY PRESLEY 82 

Motion to Confirm 83 

Committee Action 83 

Termination of Proceedings 83 

Certificate of Reporter 84 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Governor's appointees appearing 
today, Marty Gallegos, Patient Advocate, Department of Managed 


MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 
Members. Good afternoon. 

I'm delighted to be here. It's good to see some 
of my former colleagues. 

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here 
today for you to consider confirmation of my appointment as the 
Patient Advocate for the State of California. 

I was truly honored to have been selected by 
Governor Davis to serve in this capacity for the 22 million 
commercial HMO enrollees in this state. 

I think you're all pretty familiar with my 
history and background in this area of managed care, 
particularly with regard to consumer advocacy, and that would be 
from my role as a health care provider as well as a Legislator, 
and now as an implementer. I would hope that you would view 
these qualifications as valuable to serve capably and 
competently in the role of Patient Advocate. 

As you're probably aware, the Office of Patient 
Advocate was created by AB 78, which was signed into law by 
Governor Gray Davis in 1999 as part of the 21 bill HMO reform 
package for that year. The office, which actually began 
operating on July 1st of 2000, arose out of the need for 

consumers to be provided with information and education about 
the managed care system so they could better understand their 
rights and responsibilities as HMO consumers. 

Now, the Office of Patient Advocate serves a 
.uable function and addresses consumers' desire for 
information to assist them in understanding how to navigate the 
sometimes complicated and confusing managed care system in 
California . 

In the eight months that I have been serving in 
this capacity, I've overseen the accomplishment of this mission 
by effectively carrying out the statutory duties and obligations 
of the Office of Patient Advocate, which include producing the 
HMO quality report card, developing consumer education programs 
and materials, providing advice and assistance to HMO enrollees, 
making recommendations to the Department of Managed Health Care, 
and collaborating with other consumer organizations. 

In order to carry out these duties, myself and my 
staff have developed and put into motion an ambitious agenda 
that is included in the list of goals and objectives which has 
been provided, and I hope distributed, to each of you, and is 
also included in the package which was distributed to you this 
afternoon. This agenda includes: improving and expanding the 
HMO quality report card; in that regard, we will be updating 
quality data for the first year report card; expanding on the 
reporting of cultural and linguistic services; embarking on 
reporting of individual medical group quality data; and 
providing an analysis of complaint data that is compiled by the 
Department of Managed Health Care. 

We will also continue to expand the role of the 
Mobile Information Center Program, which is the program that 
travels to community events throughout the state to provide 
consumers with one-to-one information about how to understand 
and navigate their HMO. 

This year, we will be also contracting with seven 
local community-based consumer assistance organizations to help 
us in that effort as well. Similar to, I think, what is also 
being proposed in legislation, and something that I feel is 
extremely important in working to get access, and to get the 
message, and to get information out to consumers within the 
community, these type of collaborative efforts and these 
public-private partnerships, I think, can be very beneficial to 
health care consumers in general. 

This summer, we plan to publish a comprehensive 
HMO consumer guidebook, which will provide a broad array of 
basic information about managed care, how to effectively use it. 
We are partnering with UC Berkeley in that endeavor. We are 
also partnering with UCLA to produce a demographic report and 
profile of the HMO consumer in California. 

These are just a few of the initiatives that we 
will be completing within the coming months. 

Finally, I'm very proud of the broad base of 
organization that has come forward to support my confirmation. 
They represent what I think is a diverse group of consumers and 
providers, and additional letters have you been included in the 
folder that we sent out to you, and they are from: AARP, the 
Latino Coalition for Healthy California; and the California 

Medical Association. As far as I'm aware, there is no 
opposition to my confirmation. 

At this time, I would like to simply, 
respectfully request your vote for my confirmation as Patient 
Advocate and would be happy to entertain any questions. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Under the current law, the 
different types of health insurance are regulated by different 
departments. The Department of Managed Health Care regulates 
HMOs and some PPOs, while the Department of Insurance regulates 
the PPOs that aren't regulated by the Department of Managed 
Health Care. And the Department of Health Services have some 
jurisdiction over some managed care entities, as well as those 
delivering services to Medi-Cal. 

There was a study by -- I don't know who 
authorized it; I guess the head of your department, the 
Department of Managed Care -- had Clark Kelso do a study about 
the feasibility and benefit of consolidating jurisdictions. And 
the study didn't make any concrete recommendations, which to me 
is very confusing. 

Basically, if somebody needs help, how do they 
know even who to go to? Whether to go to you, go to Health 
Services, or go to the Department of Insurance? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Well, Mr. Chairman, indeed, the 
current system of regulation and oversight is confusing to 
consumers. The Advisory Committee for the Department of 
Managed Health Care, on which I serve as an ex-officio member, 
did commission the report from Professor Clark Kelso at McGeorge 

School of ' Law . 

He actually made about, if I recall correctly, 
eight different recommendations -- eight different options, none 
of which were specific recommendations but were options for the 
Department to review in looking at regulatory reform. 

Now currently, if a consumer does have a question 
or needs to call their health plan, whether it's under the 
Department of Insurance, Department of Managed Health Care, 
Department of Health Services, or where ever, there is by law a 
required consumer or members telephone number which is toll-free 
which is printed on the back of the insurance card. Now, if the 
consumer doesn't have their insurance card, which happens in 
some cases, then they would find themselves in a difficult 
situation . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do they get a live person, or 
do they get press one, press two, press three; do you know? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Well, I can only speak for the HMO 
Help Center. I can't speak for the other entities. 

There is a voice referral system that's part of 
the toll-free number to the HMO Help Center, but there is also 
an option for consumers to get a live person in a number of 
different languages other than English to accommodate the non 
and the limited English speaking consumer. 

The records from the Department HMO Help Center 
do indicate that about 40 percent of the calls that do come into 
the Help Center are taken care of through the voice referral 
system, but I can't address what the other departments do, 
Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I guess we can get that, what 
his options were. 

I would have figured somebody could have figured 
out what the options are without commissioning a study. I think 
ycu ask a study to give some recommendations. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Well, the study did produce 
options that ranged everywhere from full-blown consolidation of 
regulation of all of the different lines of service for health 
care, all the way down to what was perceived to be one of the 
simplest to implement, which would be to have one central toll- 
free number where anybody who gets insurance under any kind of 
program would just be able to pick up that call; somebody would 
then be able to direct them to the appropriate agency or entity 
to answer the questions and resolve their issue. 

Now, what the report did do was to give 
advantages and disadvantages, projected costs for all of the 
different options of reform, and provide pros and cons, good 
things and bad things under each of the different options for 
regulatory reform. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, we'll probably not do 

MR. GALLEGOS: I don't know, to be honest with 
you, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I don't have any questions, but 
I would just offer the observation that if there's changes, they 
ought :o come from this Legislature. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Absolutely. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: The Legislature ought to be 
proposing any change. 

But I have no questions of this gentleman. I've 
known him for a number of years. While I don't always agree 
with him, I think he's highly qualified. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


Let me ask a couple of questions about your view 
on the publication of provider financial information. Is that a 
question as to what type of information consumers should have 
access to with respect to the financial solvency or insolvency 
of the group? What are your opinions on this? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Well, I support the consumer 
advocate's position that there should be full disclosure of 
information for consumers from a safety standpoint, from a 
choice standpoint. I think providing that information is very 
valuable to consumers. 

Now, the courts, however, seem to think 
otherwise. There was a recent ruling which tied the hands of 
the Department of Managed Health Care. 

And by the way, that's their role. That 
particular entity really is their role. 

But nevertheless, to answer your question, the 
Department of Managed Health Care also supported that position, 
if I'm not mistaken, as did pretty much most of the members of 
the Fiscal Solvency Standards Board. But because of the court's 
decision -- 

SENATOR ROMERO: Were you sitting on the board at 
the time of that -- 

MR. GALLEGOS : As an ex-officio member, yes. 

SENATOR ROMERO: And then, if you could also let 
us know what position you took, if any, with respect to your 
role as the Patient Advocate. 


Getting back to the answer to the first question, 
the court ruling basically tied the hands of the Department. 
The Department felt that -- feels that they're, by that ruling, 
not allowed to even collect data, let alone publicly report it. 

Now, there are some fiscal solvency data that was 
reportable and agreed to buy all parties prior to the court 
ruling. There were about four different criteria for fiscal 

But the Department has ceased to collect, at this 
point, any financial information from the health plans based on 
their interpretation of the court ruling. 

My position as ex-officio member of that board 
during those deliberations, and I was only a party to probably 
the last two or three meetings on this issue, was that along 
with the consumer advocates, we felt that as much disclosure of 
this information to consumers would be a benefit to consumers. 
So, I mean, we're obviously disappointed at the court ruling. 

And I believe the Department -- and again, I'm 
not here to speak on behalf of the Department because that's not 
my role -- but the Department is going back to review on the 
suggestion of consumer advocates how they could restructure 

regulation to address the issues brought up in the court ruling 
and still be able to provide valuable information to consumers 
about the financial status of their plans. 


Also, you wrote the legislation which resulted in 
the creation of this position, and of course -- 

MR. GALLEGOS: Yes, don't hold that against me, 
please . 

SENATOR ROMERO: Because you've been nominated to 
assume that position, how does it measure up to how you had 
imagined it to be? What are shortcomings? What might be done 
to strengthen it? Can you tell us a little bit how it is 
stacking up to what you originally conceived the position to be? 

MR. GALLEGOS: I'll try to be objective, Senator, 
in that response. 

Short of wanting to say it was a great bill, and 
it's doing an outstanding job for consumers, truly I think that 
this was one of the major pieces in that 21 bill package of HMO 
reform that has been valuable to reinstilling confidence in the 
consumers in the HMO system. 

Now, I think we still have a ways to go. The 
Department as well as the Office of Patient Advocate has only 
been in operation for less than two years. And, of course, the 
size of the task in sheer numbers in California just means that 
we still have a lot of work left to do. 

I think for the most part that both the 
Department and the Office have been carrying out the intent of 
the legislation to the best of their ability. I think they've 


been doing an outstanding job, and I hope that in my role, now 
assuming the direction of the Office of the Patient Advocate, 
we'll be able to take it to a higher level. We certainly are 
planning to do that, given the resources that we have. 

I think it's been, over all, a big boon to 
consumers, and I think consumers have benefitted from this 


MR. GALLEGOS: You're welcome. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was that an appellate decision, 
a Supreme Court decision, or what? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Prohibiting the Department from 
collecting, Superior Court. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did they appeal it or what? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Senator, that's in the domain of 
the Department, so I'm not sure. I'm sure that they're probably 
looking at that option. 

There are probably folks here who can probably 
answer that question better, but I know that is an option that 
they have. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does anybody know whether it 
was appealed or what? 

MR. GALLEGOS: I don't believe it has been 
appealed. And I don't believe -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I thought that were people here 
that might know. Anybody here know? 

MS. CAPELL [FROM THE AUDIENCE]: It has not been 




MS. CAPELL: Beth Capell on behalf of Health 

The decision has not been appealed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's only a Superior Court 


MS. CAPELL: There were defects in the law 
revealed by the decision that are under discussion about how -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Defects in the law or the regs? 

MS. CAPELL: In the law — both, but in the 
underlying statute as well. So, there's further discussion 
going on about -- among many parties about how best to proceed. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, thank you. 

MR. GALLEGOS: And certainly legislative solution 
is another option. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It usually is. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Nice to see you again, Marty. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you, Senator. Likewise. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I've got a number of 
constituents, and they call me. Most of the time, the only 
thing I can tell them is, you know, you need a lawyer. 

So, if you'd give me your number, I'd certainly 
like to refer them to you. 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Tell them to find a good 
chiropractor . 


[Laughter . ] 

MR. GALLEGOS: It's just hard to find a good one 
nowadays, Senator Johnson. 

I'd be happy to. If it's an issue where there's 
:omplaint or a dispute with their health plan, they can call 
the Help Center at 1-888-HMO-2219 . And if it's an issue where 
they just need some information or some questions answered, they 
can certainly go to the OPA website, which is www -- you want a 
phone number? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: See, these people don't have a 
computer . 

MR. GALLEGOS: For your constituents, it would be 
the Los Angeles office, which is Area Code 213, 897-0579. 

Your staff is also welcome, Senator, to compile 
whatever information from your constituents. Call our office, 
forward that to us, and then we'd be happy at that point to 
proceed with the appropriate steps to address your constituent's 
concerns . 

And that I would say for any Legislator, not just 
a Member of this Committee. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I'm glad to see you. I saw 
you a little earlier. 

I'm always concerned about efficiency and 
agencies communicating with each other. Tell me a little bit 
about how it's oossible that we can make all of these agencies, 


all of these health care agencies, communicate with each other. 
Because, you may know things that they need to know; they may 
know things that you need to know. 

Does it take legislation? Can we make it happen 
by just telling people it should happen? Because that's one of 
the big difficulties with bureaucracies. They don't talk to 
each other. 

I had a bill that related to environmental 
concerns, the same idea, getting the environmental agencies to 
talk to each other. 

So, do you have any ideas on that? This is 
something that really disturbs me, the inefficiency of agencies, 
and people not wanting to even talk about what their issues are 
with anybody, as if nobody should have them except them. You 
know, we can all have them. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Senator, I think in general there 
isn't anything to stop or stifle individual departments from 
taking the initiative to communicate with similar bodies in 
government. I'll give you an example of what we're doing at 
Office of Patient Advocate with the Department of Health 
Services and with Mr. Mibb, and also with CMS. 

We're looking at how we can create a joint 
venture, an interdepartmental effort to report data on quality 
of health plans, not only in the commercial sector, in the 
private commercial sector, but also in Medi-Cal managed care in 
Healthy Families, and in Medi-Care. 

We think that would be an efficient way, rather 
than each of our entities individually reporting similar data 


four different times, that we could maybe have one vehicle to 
report it one time for all of the consumers, whether they get 
their care from Medi-Cal or whether they get it from the private 
commercial health plans. So, that's one way. 

Another way is, OPA participates in what's called 
the Interagency Task Force with the California Department of 
Insurance, with the Center for Medi-Care and Medicaid Services, 
and other governmental entities. And what we do is, we look at 
how we can integrate state and federal regulations, establish 
jurisdictional boundaries, and what would be proper referral 
procedures for individuals, depending on what line of business 
they receive their health care. 

And so, there's a couple of examples where the 
initiative was taken by the respective governmental entities to 
try to improve better communication. So, the answer to the rest 
of your question is, I don't think it requires legislation, but 
certainly a strong message from the Legislature that that's a 
priority for departments to communicate with similar bodies in 
other departments might spur some initiative for that to happen 
on a more frequent basis. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I'll think about that. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Feel free to take back a strong 
message from that Committee. 

MR. GALLEGOS: So noted, Senator. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Move the nomination. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any family here? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Yes, I believe there are some 


witnesses here in support. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have family? 

MR. GALLEGOS: Sorry, I didn't hear you. 

No, there's no family present. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: All right, witnesses in 
support. Announce your name and organization, and that's it. 

MR. CAPELL: Yes, sir. 

Beth Capell on behalf of Health Access. Pleased 
to be here in support. 

MS. PERRY: Betty Perry. I'm representing the 
Congress of California Seniors as well as the Older Women's 
League today. 

MR. COOPER: Peter Cooper on behalf of the 
California Labor Federation. 

MR. THOMPSON: Steve Thompson, a former student 
of Ms. Perry, and we support, the CMA supports, anything she 
supports . 

MS. COWGER: Terri Cowger on behalf of the 
California Children's Hospital Association and the Hemophilia 
Council of California in strong support. 

MS. SWARTZ: Marjorie Swartz, representing Western 
Center on Law and Poverty. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in opposition? 
Hearing none, Senator Romero moves the nomination. Call the 
roll . 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Marty. 

MR. GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and 

Members . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Diana Butler, Warden, Folsom. 

Good afternoon. 

MS. BUTLER: Senator Burton, Senate Rules 
Committee, and those present, good afternoon. Thank you for the 
opportunity to come before you and present my qualifications as 
Warden appointee of Folsom State Prison. 

My professional experience includes serving the 
Department of Corrections for over 24 years, serving in both 
custody and noncustody. I have worked at six different 
institutions covering all levels of inmate custody, from the 
camp inmates to those housed in the Security Housing Unit. 

Prior to being appointed as the Warden of Folsom 
State Prison, I was appointed and confirmed as the Warden of 
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, from 1998 to 2001. 
Prior to that, I was the Chief Deputy Warden at Ironwood State 
Prison, which was an activating prison. Prior to that, I was 
Chief of Classification Services, which is a major area in 


Headquarters. And I have interacted with the different 
institutions, different departments, the Board of Prison Terms, 
and outside agencies. 

My formal schooling includes a Bachelor's of Arts 
Degree from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, a Master's 
of Education from the University of Nevada in Reno. 

My focus includes serving and maintaining the 
public safety in an efficient manner, making Folsom State Prison 
a meaningful and safe workplace for the employees, a beneficial 
and safe place for inmates to serve their sentences, and a 
valuable neighbor for the surrounding community. 

I wish to acknowledge and thank the fine staff of 
Folsom State Prison who continue to serve and blend tradition 
with current excellence. I wish to thank my supportive 
supervisors, friends, and especially my wonderful family. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Did you replace a male or 
female warden? 

MS. BUTLER: There was an interim female acting 
warden, but Glen Mueller was the prior Warden. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: This is more idle curiosity, 
we've seen several female wardens. Basically, prisons and that 
were always a male bastion. 

How do you deal with that? Or, how do they deal 
with you? I guess they accepted it, because there are quite a 
few female wardens now. 

MS. BUTLER: I believe I am the second appointed 
Warden of Folsom State Prison, and I believe the first Warden 


had a successful time there. 

I feel that I am very supported by staff. I do 
not believe my gender has anything to do with it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long is your pre-release 
program there? 

MS. BUTLER: My pre-release program is for three 
weeks . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you think that's enough? 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who determines three weeks? 
You, whoever, the budgetary stuff, or what? 

MS. BUTLER: It's my understanding that there was 
a desire to put as many people through the program as possible. 
And so, we as a department, it was decided to have three weeks 
for the program and to have it standardized. 

I understand that there are exceptions to this 
three-week requirement, and that some programs are six weeks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: When do you do it, right before 
they leave? 

MS. BUTLER: We do it as close before they leave 
as possible, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, if you want to put as 
many people through the program as they can, I would think — 
it's a departmental reg? 

MS. BUTLER: It's a departmental stance, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One, I don't think three weeks 
is enough. 

Two, if you want to put people through, they can 


move it back and maybe do it a little earlier. Because the 
better the pre-release program, conceivably, the least chances 
are you might see the individual again. 

MS. BUTLER: Could I add some information. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Sure, go ahead. 

MS. BUTLER: Folsom is doing some pilot programs, 
and we have been contacted by the Parole Division. And they 
have a program which is called the Offender Employment 
Continuum. So, they are joining with us to bring contract 
people in. And even though this is only a 40-hour course, it is 
very intense, and it is put on with a standardized curriculum 
there . 

I have also contacted the PIA, which is the 
Prison Industry Authority, who has programs in our area. They 
are implementing an inmate employability program. 

I am also in contact with Paroles, and they are 
proposing a parole pre-release preparation program, and it's my 
understanding that that program is intended to be six months, 
so that's the last part going out, so that they would not only 
have the information from the institution side, but they would 
be providing a lot more information from the community side, 
which is where they are going to. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many inmates participate in 
the program, roughly? 

MS. BUTLER: We have 60 inmates. We have two 
classes, which is a joint teaching, shared teaching, and so we 
have about 60 inmates every three weeks. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you bring in the DMV, and 


Social Security, and other government agencies? 

MS. BUTLER: We do that as regularly as 
possible. Sometimes it is not possible, but we encourage it, 
and we try to have them come in. 

We also encourage the parole agent to come in so 
they have that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's not possible because? 

MS. BUTLER: I believe they have budget concerns 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, in other words, DMV 
couldn't send somebody there because they're busy watching 
people wait in line to get their driver's license? 

MS. BUTLER: That's my understanding, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about gang violence at the 
prison? Has it been up, down, sideways, or what? 

MS. BUTLER: Over the last five or six years, 
Folsom has had very little violence there. Unfortunately this 
last six months, we have had some. And apparently Folsom has 
had the reputation of being too much of a programming 
institution. So, through our intelligence -- 


MS. BUTLER: Meaning we're not disruptive enough. 

And so, what we have heard is — 


MS. BUTLER: Let me explain, I'm sorry. 

We have the influence of the prison gangs, and 
they try to have control of the different prisons by keeping 
them in turmoil and trying to have them become disruptive. 


Our staff have done a great job of keeping the 
gangs out of Folsom Prison, and they've done a great job of 
having that a programming prison. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do they do that? 

MS. BUTLER: It's my understanding that when an 
inmate comes in, we give him an orientation, we get him into a 
program. We let them know that we do not tolerate this type of 
thing . 

And we have many, many, many inmates at Folsom 
that want to program, that do not buy into this proposed 
violence. And we have people that will let us know who these 
inmates are that want to disrupt the prison. 

Our staff go ahead and document this. They go 
ahead and take these inmates off the yard. And working with 
Headquarters Classification Services, et cetera, we move those 
inmates to a higher level institution, or, if we have enough 
documentation, we will actually place them in the SHU program 
because of their disruptive behavior and what we feel is 
disruptive influence. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You call SHU a program? Isn't 
that like 20 to 23 hours looking up at a thing? 

MS. BUTLER: Yes, it is, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'd just hesitate to call it a 


MS. BUTLER: I apologize. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's all right. 

Senator Johnson on this point. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I had a question about that 


Isn't it a fact that the prisoners, by and large 
at Folsom, are just older than in the rest of the system? 
Doesn't that account for a lot -- 

MS. BUTLER: It does account for probably a lot 
of our stability. We have approximately 750 lifers. And to 
become a lifer at Folsom, that means you'd have to serve a lot 
of time to get your points down and be transferred to a Level II 

We also -- I think the average age in CDC is 
approximately 34. Our average age is 37. 

But we do have inmates come into the Level lis 
that are youngsters, that do want to participate in this 
disruptive behavior, that do want to sell their drugs, and that 
do want to cause havoc. 

We do not appreciate these inmates, and we try to 
remove them and get them off of our yard as soon as possible. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: The key is a better class of 
prisoner . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you do if somebody, 
shall we say, if an inmate calls the attention to the 
administration that people are trying to do gang stuff or 
something, what do you do to protect them and not have the word 
gets around that there's a snitch in the yard? 

MS. BUTLER: We understand that inmates do not 
like quote, "snitches," people that tell on other inmates. 

So, we are very careful with our information. We 
have a file of this central file, which has the inmate's 


records, and it is called a confidential file. And no one from 
the outside, unless they have a need to know, is allowed to read 
that. Only the staff have access to that file. 

And so, we put the confidential information in 
that area so that most people would not have information 
concerning that. 

We also have an S and I Squad. They -- it's 
Security and Investigation. And this is a select group of 
officers that receive additional training in the gangs, and they 
also receive training on how to go out and interact with the 
inmates. And the inmates know who they are, so they know that 
they can provide that information to them. 

We also get what we call kites, or pieces of mail 
through the mail and First Watch, and they will send us 
anonymous information. In fact, on this last one, we even got 
anonymous information from visitors, where their loved one, 
inmate, you know, was confiding in them. And so, the visitor 
store would call us and anonymously let us know what their 
concerns were. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are there ever like 

MS. BUTLER: If there are repercussions, we try 
to take the inmate off of the yard, and we put them, 
unfortunately, in Ad. Seg., but Ad. Seg. is a protection area; 
it's not necessarily a bad area. And then we go through the 
classification process, and we get them transferred to a 
different prison so that they can program without these 
problems . 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Are you involved in the visitor 
procedures, visiting procedures? 

MS. BUTLER: Yes, I am. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: If a visitor complains about 
knows what in the process, how do you handle it? 

MS. BUTLER: How do I handle it. If they write 
me a letter, then I answer it personally. And I don't -- I look 
at the issue, and I try to -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You look into it and see 
whether there's merit to their complaint, whether you should 
change the process, whether you should talk to whoever the 
guards are in the visitor's room, or what? 

MS. BUTLER: Right. I believe that in visiting, 
we have now a very proactive group. And one of the authorities 
that I've given to the staff that are on duty, especially on the 
weekend, is there are issues that do come up that, you know, the 
regs just don't cover. Or, if the regulations do cover, maybe 
common sense doesn't. You know, it just counters common sense. 

At the prior institution, I give the example 
where this grandmother would always visit. I think she was 
like 80 years old or something. So, one week she came and her 
driver's license expired. Well, the regulations say you can't 
visit, you know, without a valid driver's license. And yet the 
staff knew her, and everything else. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What if you don't drive? That's 
a dumb regulation. 

MS. BUTLER: Well, there's other documents you 
can get . 


The point is, sir, that I have given my staff -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Have them use some common 
sense . 

MS. BUTLER: Yes. I have given my staff -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What do you need to get in? 
What if you don't drive? What suffices? 

MS. BUTLER: You can get a California 
identification card. You can get a passport. 

I think the easiest thing to do is get a 
California identification card. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


Just last week, I believe it was, we confirmed 
the Director of the Department of Corrections. There was a 
great deal of testimony, and there was some very disturbing 
testimony, it was for me, in terms of the food for inmates. A 
statistic that we heard was that inmates are fed on an average 
of $2.40. 

MS. BUTLER: Forty-five cents. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Forty-five cents, let's be 
generous . 

That bothers me. I don't know how I can eat one 
meal under $2.45 unless I'm really skimping. 

Can you describe for us what is a meal plan? 
What's the nutritional value? We asked for a menu, but I'm just 
curious . 


And again, this is system wide. I don't want to 
pick on you, but can you describe for me how nutritious is this? 

MS. BUTLER: First of all, we have a master 
nutritionist. And when we first -- 

SENATOR ROMERO: You'd have to at 2.45 a day. 
I'd say you'd have to be a master. 

MS. BUTLER: Their goal was to assure that we 
offered the inmates 2500 calories a day. So, that is kind of 
the standard as far as calories. 

And then we became aware that we would be having 
an aging population, and health care is a very costly item. So, 
our nutritionist then focused on a heart healthy menu, so that's 
what we have now, is a menu that is supposed to fit the 
requirements of a heart healthy menu. 

I have brought some menus, if you would like to 
look at them later, or now. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Can you just describe quickly 
breakfast, lunch, dinner? 

MS. BUTLER: I have gone into the dining room 
many, many times. And it appears that there is too much food. 
I could never eat all that food. 

And the inmates, you know, if they don't like 
something, they'll trade it with some other inmate so they can 
eat enough of whatever it is that they like. 

But there is eggs, or pancakes, or waffles. I 
mean, the normal things that we would have for breakfast. If 
it's breakfast, it's usually a warm breakfast, a hot breakfast. 
For lunch, it is normally what we call a sack lunch, so you 


would have bread, and cheese and meat. You would have maybe 
chips or a cookie, and some kind of fruit. 

So, every meal is balanced. We are also aware 
that many of our inmates have a diabetic problem, so they have 
like a diabetic card so they can get additional milk or fruit. 

So, my background is more in education and 
programing than business service, but I know that we have what 
they call opportunity buying. And the vendors know that instead 
of having food where they have to maybe drive it a thousand 
miles, if they can get rid of the food close by, to a close by 
prison, they will give it to us at a much cheaper price. So, we 
will -- our food managers are always getting faxes about here's 
an opportunity buy. And if it fits within our menu, then we go 
ahead and do it. And we are able to do it. 

I would invite you out to Folsom, which is close. 

SENATOR ROMERO: I actually have visited, 
although I didn't hit the cafeteria. 

MS. BUTLER: Well, we serve at 5:00 in the 
morning, breakfast, or you may want to come for dinner. I 
believe truly that the sack lunch is kind of -- it's just the 
bread, and the meat, and the cheese, and the mayonnaise, or 
whatever . 

But the real menus are the ones that -- we have a 
system called cook-chill. I don't know if you're familiar with 
that, but they cook large amounts of meals. Then they chill 
them, not freeze them, and then they can be distributed in an 
organized manner. So, you can really plan ahead, and plan your 
meals ahead, and be very efficient. 


But any of you who would like to come out and 
look at it, we also have a Food Committee with the inmates. Of 

ourse, if the inmates are not happy with the food, that is a 
major concern to us because there's not a lot of items they have 
prison, even in SHU, but food is one of those items that they 
really care about. 

We have special menus for holidays. You know, on 
Thanksgiving and Christmas, and the different holidays, the food 
managers take pride in making it a special meal. And they have 
constant dialogue with the Inmate Food Committee and the food 
manager . 

And we also put out food samplers, and so it can 
be anonymous or they can sign their name if they want us to talk 
to them about that. And so, we as wardens, you know, find out 
if things are kind of going sideways. 

But as far as the cost, they're able to do this 
with the way that they purchase the food in bulk, and then 
purchase the food that is close by. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do the guards and the people 
who work there eat the same food, or do they have a different 
commissary? Do the guards and the employees in the prison eat 
the same food, or have they got a different commissary? 

MS. BUTLER: We have the guards, and usually a 
lieutenant do what we call a food sample. So, they have to eat 
one meal, but we do not feed -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: One meal a day, a year, a 
month, a week? 


MS. BUTLER: A day as a food sampler. However, 
we do not feed the guards there. They can eat whatever they 
want or bring their own food. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Bring their own sandwiches or 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's part of the MOU . 

A lot of turkey: sliced turkey; turkey bologna; 
smoked turkey; turkey pastrami; and turkey ham. 

Turkey's a cheap item. 

MS. BUTLER: Well, it's also a very acceptable 
item because some religions have problems with some of the other 
food items . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm looking at this. I don't 
know how can do that at 2.45. You must really buy in bulk. 
That does seem to be -- 

MS. BUTLER: Now, this is only for the food, 
Senator. It is not for the forks, or the knives, or the 
napkins . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Oh, okay. Cornmeal mush. I 
used to eat cornmeal -- no, I didn't eat cornmeal mush. My 
mother served me cornmeal mush. 

Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: I saw SOS on there, too. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Breakfast, right. 



SENATOR KNIGHT: Normally you associate a hot 


breakfast with somebody who's going to go out and do a whole lot 
of work. What do these guys do? 

MS. BUTLER: We have a whole variety of jobs, and 
schools, and PIA, the Prison Industry Authority. 

I would say 50 percent of our workers are in what 
we call the support services, and they're plumbers; they're 
maintenance; they paint; they clean the plumbing; they sweep the 
floors; they mow the grass. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Okay. What's a secret sauce? 

MS. BUTLER: I must have missed that day. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: It's down there on the bottom, 
Sunday dinner, secret sauce, one ounce. 

MS. BUTLER: It must be one of those old family 
recipes, sir. I really don't know. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: You were at Ironwood. 

MS. BUTLER: Yes, I was, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have to drive along that 


[Laughter . ] 
SENATOR KNIGHT: I ain't never going to get over 


Ironwood, are you familiar with a veterans 
program that they have there? 

MS. BUTLER: Yes, I am, Senator. I'm familiar 
with it. I believe they also have it at San Quentin. 

They did not have it when I was there, so I claim any addition to that as far as my input, but I 
understand that it is a very valuable organization. In fact, 


it's one of the things that pulls the different groups 
together. And it is a melding of people that had a common 
experience. It's also my understanding that they raise money 
for charity and do very positive things. I think it's a very 
good item. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Good. I'm due to be the keynote 
speaker down there, and I'm trying to figure out what it is. 

MS. BUTLER: The Warden, I'm sure, knows what it 
is. But it's a very valuable program. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: No questions. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Witnesses in support, using the 
system that we employed with Mr. Gallegos. It worked so well, 
I'd admonish you to follow it. 

MR. MABRY: Acting Chairman Ross Johnson, and 
Committee Members, and Appointments Secretary Ms. Sabelhaus, my 
name is Roy Mabry. I'm the State President of the Association 
of Black Correctional Workers. 

I'm here in full support for Ms. Diana Butler, 
her second confirmation as Warden for the California Department 
of Corrections, Folsom State Prison. 

I know that we have lot of budget concerns and 
other things. I'd like to make comments on the additional 
wardens that's coming up, specifically a warden that's assigned 
to my prison, Mr. John Dovey, but I'll do that after I give 
Ms. Butler a hug, if it's okay, Senator. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: If it's okay with Ms. Butler. 


MR. MABRY : I know you're rushed for time, and I 
am also. I'm in the process of getting loan from a bank because 
I keep hearing in articles that our stock is soaring. It's a 
long story. 

For Mr. David Runnels, Warden from High Desert 
State Prison, we're also giving our full support. I talked to 
him earlier, and he's looking a little nervous. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Does he get a hug as well? 

MR. MABRY: He's going to get a hug as well, not 
in here. 

This is a warden that's assigned to my prison, 
the California Institution for Women, and that's Mr. John Dovey. 
I'm extremely happy that we're finally going to get a male 
confirmed over a women's prison in the State of California. 
After we confirm him, we're going to just stand up, and I think 
all the Senators are going to clap. Well, maybe. 

But I'm really happy to be standing here in 
support of him today, specifically for him. I just wanted to 
puts that on the record. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you very much. 

Next witness, please. 

MS. AGUILERA-MARRERO: Good afternoon. My name 
is Suzanna Aguilera-Marrero, Sam for short, and I'm representing 
the Chicano Correctional Workers Association as their 
Association President. 

It's an honor and a privilege to sit before you 
again, this distinguished panel. And we totally support 
Ms. Diana Butler for Warden. The chapter level had an interview 


with her and voted to support her, and she was supported at the 
regional and at the state level. 

We're the largest Hispanic law enforcement 
organization of professionals in the State of California. And 
we're proud to be here and support her, and hope that you also 
confirm her today. 

Thank you. 


MR. ACUNA: I'm Oliver Acuna, the Chairperson of 
the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Folsom 
Chapter, CCPOA, representing 450 rank and file employees. 

We are in full support of Ms. Diana Butler as 
Warden . 

Thank you. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. 


MS. BIRD: I'm Cayenne Bird, Director of the 
UNION, United for No Injustice, Oppression or Neglect. 

We are made up of 6,000 inmate families. Many of 
them are doctors, teachers, nurses, social workers, people in 
the helping professions; 35 churches, 32 journalists. 

Each day we put out a newsletter on the Internet 
that lists complaints that we've received from prisoners or 
their families, mostly their families, about conditions in the 
various 33 prisons. 

You'll almost never see me sitting up in support 
of a warden because I'm on the front line where all the 
complaints come in. I have something like six filing cabinets 


full of complaints. 

Warden Butler is someone that I supported when 
she was confirmed at Chuckawalla. And the reason that I'm 
sitting here is that we have very few complaints on that prison. 

I believe what she does right that we like is 
that she comes to the position with a sensitive balance of 
compassion and wanting to help the inmates return to their 
communities in much better shape than before they were 
committed. That's missing in most of the wardens that are 
active today. Her background as a teacher, I think, plays a 
large role in the way that she manages things. She really is 
interested in education and rehabilitation as a priority. 

Of course, we don't like the SHU. We think it's 
terribly inhumane. But overall, we have the least complaints on 
Ms. Butler of any other warden. 

I would like to make a couple comments on the 
food situation, if you would allow me to do that. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Briefly, ma'am. 

MS. BIRD: Okay. 

The way that they stretch $2.45 a day over, you 
know, per inmate is that they use the mystery meat sandwiches. 
There are no special diets. This is across the board at all 
prisons . 

The heart healthy diet is very high in 
carbohydrates, but it's fats and proteins that are filling. And 
so, the inmates are complaining that they're very hungry on this 
diet . 

I think there hasn't been an increase in the food 


budget for 15 years. 

There are also problems with the serving, not 
particularly in her prison. She probably has the best one. The 
ladles are like four ounces, so inmates are doing this, and 
they're dragging their sleeves in the food. That's just a whole 
different topic. 

But the heart healthy diet is inadequate. They 
don't serve fresh food. Very rarely will they ever get a salad. 
At most prisons they've eliminated citrus. They're afraid that 
they will make pruno. You can make pruno out of catsup. But, 
you know, they've eliminated citrus, and they're giving them 
artificial sweeteners instead of real sugar to keep them from 
making wine. They've eliminated honey. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I'm going to cut you off. 

MS. BIRD: Okay, fine. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You're sounding very much like 
you're in opposition. 

MS. BIRD: No, I'm not to her particular prison, 
but I'm in opposition to the food situation. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: You're getting a little far 
afield here. 

I wonder if we could hear from the next witness. 

MS. BIRD: Well fine. Thank you. I hope that 
you confirm Warden Butler. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you, ma'am. 

MS. BIRD: Can't help it. 

MR. DOMINO: My name is Larry Domino. I am here 
in support of Ms. Butler. 


I am a member of the California Peace Officers 
Association. I'm Member of ABCW, Black Correctional Peace 
Officers -- Workers. I'm also a member of MILE, and I'm a 
member of Chicano Peace Officers Association. 

Ms. Butler, since she's been there, when she came 
in, she had some employee issues, very hard decisions that she 
had to make, and she handled them perfectly. And she's been 
doing a good job. 

She's got my support. I think she'll make a very 
good warden. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you, sir. 

Witnesses in opposition. 


SENATOR JOHNSON: Do you have any family members 
here with you today? 

MS. BUTLER: Yes, I do . I have my husband, Jim 
Butler. He's very happily retired from the Department of 
Corrections . 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Now that I need to know how it 
works, if I could get Mrs. Johnson to keep working. 

[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator Karnette moves. 
Secretary, call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Four to zero. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Congratulations. 

MS. BUTLER: Thank you. 

added his Aye vote, making the 
final vote 5-0 for confirmation.] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: John Dovey, Warden, California 
Institution for Women at Corona. 

Welcome, sir. 

MR. DOVEY: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, 
Chairman and Members of the Senate Rules Committee. Thank you 
for scheduling my appearance today. 

My name is John Dovey, Warden at the California 
Institution for Women. 

My career began over 22 years ago at the 
California Institution for Men. And while working there, I 
attended college while working full-time at the prison. I 
graduated from the University of LaVerne with Bachelor of Arts 
Degree in Human Services in 1981. 

My experience has been drawn from assignments at 
four institutions, both within the Department of Corrections and 
the California Youth Authority. As manager, my assignments have 


included Facility Captain, Custody Captain, Associate Warden, 
Chief Deputy Warden, and of course this last July as Warden at 

I believe my experience and management style are 
well suited to address both the challenges and the opportunities 
which are presented at CIW. I'm deeply concerned about the 
welfare of both staff and inmates, and I believe that since I've 
been there, they have both come to respect and believe in me as 
well . 

I recognize that you have my application and 
resume, and with my brief introduction, I ' d be happy to answer 
any and all questions you may have of me. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator Romero. 


You probably know that the Women's Caucus in the 
Legislature, of which both Senator Karnette myself are members, 
have been very interested, especially in looking at women in 
prison and the children of incarcerated parents. 

Given that yours is institution specifically for 
women, can you tell us what unique challenges your institution 
faces, and your responsibilities as a warden dealing with an 
all-female institution? 

MR. DOVEY: Well, I look at them as 
opportunities. I believe that working at CIW has presented me 
with a whole new perspective on the Department of Corrections 
because there are differences. 

The main difference, of course, you know, the 
women and their children, and maintaining some kind of ties 


1 between the women and their children, and re-establishing 

2 sometimes the family ties. 

3 The women offenders come to the Department of 

4 Corrections, it's been my experience, as single heads of 

5 households. More women come in with children than men come into 

6 the institution. The women play a little more active role in 

7 child rearing. 

8 So, having programs that continue to bond the 

9 women with their children is very important to the women as well 

10 as to the administration. 

11 SENATOR ROMERO: What about access to regular 

12 gynecological health care, access to feminine hygiene products? 

13 We have heard that there have been some concerns 

14 that inmates do not have ready access to the most basic products 

15 that are needed for women. Can you respond to that? 

16 MR. DOVEY: Absolutely. 

17 I meet regularly with women, not just the Women's 

18 Advisory Council, but we have several groups, and I meet with 

19 them personally. 

20 I tour the housing units. I meet with staff. 

21 When those issues come up, we address them. 

22 SENATOR ROMERO: How often do they come up? 

23 MR. DOVEY: I've heard of it one time, that the 

24 feminine hygiene issue came up. It came up on one occasion. 

25 And I have not heard it come up. 

26 We review inmate appeals on a regular basis. The 

27 women that I met with say that it is not an issue in the general 

28 population; that there have been concerns expressed with women 


in our Administrative Segregation Unit where those kind of 
supplies are controlled. But I can assure you, they are readily 
available . 

In terms of health care, I have an excellent 
relationship with our Chief Medical Officer. We work 
hand-in-hand to administer health care to the institution. And 
when it comes to issues that they require access to care, then I 
defer to her. Then my job is to make sure that the women get it 
without any obstructions. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Many years ago, I participated 
in an educational program for women there at the institution. 
And I was reading the statistics today that on reception, your 
inmates read at a reading level of fourth grade, fifth grade. 

What type of educational programs do you offer 
for the women who are there incarcerated? What type of success 
do you see in boosting them from those entry fourth grade 
reading levels to anything that might possibly assist them upon 

MR. DOVEY: Well, the first thing I did was hire 
a new Supervisor of Correctional Education Programs, well 
respected in this area, a former teacher herself. Together, we 
have started building programs at the institution. 

But we do offer everything from Adult Basic 
Education 1, 2, and 3, to GED testing. We now have college 
courses available to the inmates as well. 

But in addition to the regular structured 
education programs that we have, we also do a lot of programing 
in the evening time. One of our programs is the READ Program, 


which is an acronym for Real Entertainment After Dinner. It's 
inmate peers helping inmate peers with literacy, helping them 
learn to read. You know, the basics of introduction to 

Another program that we're starting is, we have a 
video program that we just purchased. There's a new curriculum 
for the GED program that you're probably aware, since January. 
And we'll be offering this program, so that inmates who are 
working can go to their housing units in the evening, watch the 
videos, and then take tests later on and obtain their GED that 
way as well, so they don't have to choose whether to work or go 
to school. They can do both. 

SENATOR ROMERO: If I can just ask one last 
question . 

I applaud efforts on the GED, but we're looking 
at women who are reading at the fourth grade level. 

Can you just let me understand, are these women 
who, for the most part, have gone through high school and 
perhaps might be able to take up the GED at that point, or are 
these for the most part who -- 

MR. DOVEY: These are women for the most part who 
have come in with those kind of reading scores. So, either 
through the formalized Dole Basic Education 1, 2 or 3 process, 
or through our self-help groups in the evening, we'll take them 
right on up to GED. And for the first time in 50-year history, 
we had a GED graduation last year. 

SENATOR ROMERO: Congratulations. Thank you. 

MR. DOVEY: Thank you. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the men's prisons, it appears as though the 
gang problem is one of the more significant problems. 

What do you consider a similar problem within the 
women's institution? 

MR. DOVEY: I've worked in the men's 
institutions, and although there's sporadic instances of gang 
activity, it's really not an issue that I face in my 
institution . 

We spend our time usually on other issues. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: The question was, are there any 
other issues that would relate as to gang problems in the men's 

MR. DOVEY: From my experience, the women come 
into the institution. Instead of -- like, the men will try to 
form gangs to get access to something, to control something, the 
women come in and really form family units, if anything else. 
They take care of one another better than the men do, it seems. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Where, from which area, do 
most of the women come? I think I know the answer to that. 

MR. DOVEY: From my institution, most of the 
inmates we receive come from the Southern California counties. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Like L.A. and Orange. 

MR. DOVEY: Like L.A., Orange, Riverside, San 
Bernardino, San Diego. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, when people have to visit, 


1 it's a pretty long trip; isn't it? 

2 MR. DOVEY: Fortunately for the women at CIW, 

3 it ' s at least as close as, you know, roughly the city of Chino. 

4 So, we have a very active visiting program. And I meet 

5 regularly with the visiting staff. I tour the visiting grounds 

6 myself. I go out and I talk with visitors. 

7 So, we have a very healthy visiting program. 

8 SENATOR KARNETTE : So actually, the visiting 

9 program, it is in a location that makes it easier. 

10 MR. DOVEY: At CIW, in fact, it works out very 

11 well. 

12 SENATOR KARNETTE: One other question I had. 

13 When the women, a lot of them are there for drug-related 

14 offenses, right? 

15 MR. DOVEY: That's correct. 

16 SENATOR KARNETTE: And you have programs for 

17 rehabilitation? 

18 MR. DOVEY: CIW has the second oldest substance 

19 abuse program in the Department of Corrections. We had our ten 

20 year anniversary just a few months ago. 

21 It's a very viable program. Substance abuse, 

22 education, as you probably know, in the institutions works. 

23 It's substance abuse education inside institutions, combined 

24 with residential care upon release that really makes a 

25 difference in turning some lives around. 

26 The women, as you know, come into the 

27 institutions with many issues. Many of them have used 

28 substance abuse as a way of avoiding, a lot of times, other 


issues that they're dealing with as well. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You feel like it's reasonably 



MR. DOVEY : I believe in substance abuse 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know if this was asked 
while I was out, but you're the only warden to have the Board of 
Prison Terms come there and kind of explain stuff to people? 

MR. DOVEY: I invited the Board down; yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I don't know what good it does 
you with this administration's policy. 

Has the impact been helpful to the inmates or 

MR. DOVEY: Well, it had a great calming effect. 

The inmates were asking me about Board of Prison 
Terms decisions, about their release, about, you know, policy 
issues that are outside of my ability to control. But it was a 
very disruptive theme. It was reoccurring. 

So, in order to address the issues, I invited the 
Board down to come speak to my lifers. I have about 350 women 
who are life inmates. 

And in listening to the Board's presentation, I 
probably could have provided the same information, but see, it 
was the fact that they came and addressed them. They came there 
personally and met with them. We had, for lack of better 
words, an assembly like in school, and we let anyone who wanted 
t : Dome . 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many Board members came? 

MR. DOVEY: The Executive officer, Mr. Speed, and 
a Deputy Commissioner. They had a very good and positive 
effect . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I'm glad somebody cared, 
although nobody's going to get out anyway. 

MR. DOVEY: It was like somebody cared. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many of the lifers do you 
have down there in the battered women category? I went down; we 
had a hearing down there. I can't remember how long ago, maybe 
10 or 11 years. Several of the women testified. 

Let's assume there were nine. And except for one 
who had been arrested once either for being drunk, and she might 
also have been arrested maybe for possession of a couple joints, 
nobody else had ever done anything in their life except get beat 
up by their husbands. And, you know, they're about as much of a 
danger to society as that rug is. 

I remember there was one, she's probably still 
there. She was a little, well, older -- at least I thought she 
was older. Maybe she's my age. An Italian lady who, I think, 
even used to work in the parish rectory, or something. And 
every time her husband beat her up, she'd go to the priest, and 
the priest would say, "Pray for yourself. Pray for him." She 
did. She'd go home, and he'd beat her up again. 

I mean, she's still in prison. And like, it 
makes a hell of a lot of no sense to me. 

Now I know it's not your deal, but how do they 
not get into a gang and set fire to their mattresses? It just 


seems to me the most outrageous, unfair, stupid waste of 
taxpayers' money, plus a terrible thing. 

You know what the women are. I mean, I would 
imagine the ones I saw, they could babysit my grandson in a 
heart beat and I wouldn't even think about it, including the one 
that got arrested, you know, for being drunk once. 

I mean, how do they interact? 

MR. DOVEY: My lifer population at the 
institution is very stable. I've personally reviewed many of 
their files. And like you say, many times the only criminal 
history they've ever had is the 187 that got them to prison. 

The fact is, my job, after I maintain security, 
is to provide not just programs for inmates so that once they do 
get out, they'll be ready, but also to provide hope. To provide 

And one of the things that we're doing, and why 
don't they just rebel is because we continue to try to work with 
them, and they respond. One of the programs -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I applaud you for what you're 
trying to do. 

How can you offer hope to somebody that knows 
there's a policy that says never? I mean, and I really do, I 
applaud you for what you're doing, but, I mean, as someone once 
saia in a movie as they were torturing somebody and then let up, 
"There's nothing more evil than giving someone false hope." 

I don't know how you can program the lifers to 
get out when they ain't going to get out. How you can give them 
hope . 


What is it? I think Pete did one, and Gray did 
one. I think that was it, and it's been a while. 

MR. DOVEY : The recent women who've been 
released, their releases themselves have provided hope. So, the 
women continue -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They think there's a shot 
somewhere . 

MR. DOVEY: — they continue to look for a date. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: God bless them. 

Do you have any family here, sir? 

MR. DOVEY: Yes, I do. I have my wife, Lisa; my 
sons Mike, Nick, Drew; and my daughter LaShay. I have my 
parents, Ron and Betty Dovey of Claremont. And I see my uncle 
came in, Marion Shroeder, and my cousin. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: We can dispose of you and empty 
the room, huh? 

[Laughter . ] 


Witnesses in support. Name, group, and support, 
please . 

Go ahead. 

MR. MARTINEZ: Mr. Chairman and panel members, 
my name is Nick Martinez. I'm a member of CSEA, and I'm also a 
member of the Correctional Institutions Committee. 

In early April, Ms. Marty Goodman, a co-committee 
member of mine, and myself had the opportunity of touring the 
Correctional Institution for Women, where we were warmly met by 
Mr. Dovey and his staff. We toured the institution and had the 


opportunity to speak with CSEA members there. 

They are all in support of Mr. Dovey. Not all, 
but those that we spoke to were. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Don't give him the names of the 
others . 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. MARTINEZ: Okay. We had the opportunity to 
also meet with him during lunch time, and they had nothing but 
good things to say about Mr. Dovey. 

We support Mr. Dovey in his confirmation, and we 
ask that you also support him. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you very much. 

Next, please. 

MR. VILLANUEVA: Good afternoon. My name is 
Richard Villanueva. I've been a correctional lieutenant at the 
California Institution for Women since 1993. I am also the 
local Chapter President for the California Correctional 
Supervisors Organization. 

In polling the supervisors, the CIW supervisors 
there overwhelmingly support Mr. Dovey and welcome him as our 
new warden. 

Thank you. 

MR. MUNERLYN: Good afternoon. My name is 
Cubby, and yes, Cubby is my real name. 

I'm here in sole support of Mr. Dovey. I've been 
at CIW for 17 years. In fact, I'm presently working as a CC I. 

I believe in his vision. I believe in the things 
that he's done. He supports programs that does, in fact, 


1 promote hope, even though it seems dim, Mr. Burton, but he does 

2 do that. And that's the reason why I'm here in full support of 

3 Mr. Dovey. 

4 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

5 Next, please. 

6 MR. TATUM: My name is Richard Tatum. I'm the 

7 State President of the California Correctional Supervisors 

8 Organization. 

9 I take these confirmations very seriously. Our 

10 organization does. Come to many of them with it. 

11 We feel that Mr. Dovey is the type of warden that 

12 we need in the Department. His integrity, his knowledge, his 

13 abilities are the type of warden that we feel that the 

14 Department of Corrections needs, not only in female but in male 

15 type institutions. 

16 With that, I'm requesting his confirmation. 

17 Thank you. 

18 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Thank you. 

19 Are there witnesses in opposition? 

20 MS. BIRD: You missed my testimony in support of 

21 Warden Butler and an explanation of the food problem. 

22 Senator Burton, honorable Members of the 

23 Committee, Cayenne Bird, representing UNION. 

24 What I do is take complaints out of filing 
i cabinets, six drawers full, and combine them into a summary, a 

short summary in this case, but one that's important to us 
nevertheless. We circulate the -- I told them this earlier, but 
I want you to know, Senator Burton -- we circulate complaints 


from the prisons daily in a newsletter on the Internet. It goes 

the ournalists, certain Legislators, our churches, a lot of 
people. It gets out there. So, I'm very much aware of what's 
going on inside the prisons. 

We have a medical advisor. He is a nephrologist 
and internist in San Diego, someone who has worked with the 
Legislature over the medical neglect issues. And he is someone 
that I respect very much. He's not at all a hot head, and you 
will know him by first name John. 

So many of the things that I'm about to state are 
based on our medical advisor's input, our medical doctor's 
input, who has a loved one who's had a tour there and stayed at 
the prison while Mr. Dovey was Acting Warden. 

Basically, these are our complaints. He has 
failed to provide safe and healthy living conditions. CIW has a 
massive rodent problem. This is frightening to the inmates. 
The whole place is old. It needs to be bulldozed. That's not 
his fault, but still, he needs to stand up for that and say, 
listen, this facility has leaky sewage. There's notices in the 
waiting room. High levels of metals in the water, cadmium, 
other metals, lead, probably from the old plumbing. The guards 
drink the bottled water, and the inmates are forced to drink 
water that is basically poison, according to the alerts. Of 
course, our medical doctor is going to be extremely sensitive to 
these things when his loved one was there, drinking the water. 

The flies are very thick. CIW is located in the 
middle of a horse and cow farm. There's manure all around. 
There's a fertilizing processing plant just across the street. 


1 Our visitors tell us that the amonia blows right into the 

2 prison. It's at a toxic level. We've even filed complaints 

3 with the EPA. People's eyes are burning when they come out. 

4 That's how bad the ammonia level is. 

5 The water is contaminated also by nitrates. 

6 There's very strict regulations about water quality. They're 

7 supposed to do these reports every three months. The last one 

8 posted there is April, 2001, so we respectfully ask that the 

9 condition of the water be updated. And we want to know what is 

10 being done to protect the water supply. 

11 CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you give this testimony to 

12 Senator Polanco's Sub 4 that deals with the funding of 

13 Corrections and the prisons? 

14 MS. BIRD: No. 

15 CHAIRMAN BURTON: In other words, as good or bad 

16 as anybody is, they can't do much about the smell of the cow 

17 manure down there, having been there myself. 

18 MS. BIRD: And the ammonia. 

19 CHAIRMAN BURTON: But I mean, those matters are 

20 matters of funding Corrections in Sub 4. 

21 So I think also what I would suggest to you, 

22 although this budget cycle is done, is to contact Senator 

23 Polanco's Joint Committee on Prison Construction. 

24 MS. BIRD: They're on our -- they've been on our 

25 list for sometime, Senator Polanco's office. 

2 6 CHAIRMAN BURTON: I know you're sending him 

27 stuff, but you ought to contact Senator Polanco's committee and 

28 staff, and try to get a hearing. 


This man, none of us are going to get that thing 
shut down except for the budget and the Governor. 

MS. BIRD: Okay. But I did just want to make 
sure those reports are up to date, and that you're aware. 

We don't have a lot of response when we're trying 
to get help on these issues. That's why I'm here. 

I could just fill this whole room with one 
e-mail, with a lot of people who would be just all up in arms, 
but I try to be the sane representative. There is a failure to 
control the guards. We have a lot of complaints from a Sergeant 
Cole as being a peeping Tom. Even doctor -- the doctor, our 
medical doctor, confronted Mr. Dovey about it, and just the 
administration got all together and gave a lot of excuses 
instead of firing him. He obviously has more than one report. 
Instead of taking appropriate action, the complaints are met 
with more of a cover-up than an actual action. 

There is neglect. Inmates in the Ad. Seg., for 
months at a time, even when they're in there for their own 
protection. The combination of the isolation and the unsanitary 
hygiene, the mice, the leaking sewage right into the cells, it 
makes it comparable to a prison in Tijuana. It's just terrible, 
and it's unfit for Americans. 

The National Commission of Health Care says that 
inmates should have daily access to a shower, and it should be 
at an appropriate temperature. The women in the Ad. Seg. shower 
every three days. It's very cold. This is a system-wide 
problem. These Ad. Seg. conditions are worse than the regular 
conditions . 


He had his loved one there. He tried to work 
with Dovey, as we have had him represent other problems. SNAFU 
after SNAFU occurred, and she ended up staying ten weeks in that 
hell hole, Ad. Seg. out there. 

We have complete access to Diana Butler, but he 
was very callous in the handling of these complaints. 

And so, I do want to stress that the operation of 
this facility, the actual physical parts of it, are very 
substandard to where people should be living, especially living 
for the rest of their lives. 

There's a lot more I could say, but that's the 
high point of this particular one. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And again, I would suggest that 
you try, instead of putting -- I mean, Senator Polanco's office, 
like all of us, gets a ton of stuff everyday. And I would 
really suggest you try to set up an appointment with the 
Senator's staff that deals with both Corrections budget and the 
Joint Committee on Prisons Operations and Construction, because 
most of what you say is within their purview, and they could be 
very helpful. 

MS. BIRD: We have had meetings with CDC top 
staff and Senator Polanco's people, and some of the wardens. We 
have had certain meetings. Doctor has been very involved in 
that, but we just don't see any change. We've been doing this 
since '98, and it just doesn't move. It's budget or -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: A lot of it's budget. We're 
going to try to get the prisons themselves into an MOU 
situation, as opposed to, like, the people that work 


there. Then they could end up with getting maybe some money for 
capital construction. 

MS. BIRD: But the accessibility, and the long 
terms in the Ad. Seg., that has to end, and sensitivity to our 
complaints . 



I think the Warden's got that 

MS. BIRD: Okay. Thank you. 


Move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Four to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Congratulations, Warden. 

MR. DOVEY: Thank you. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And thank you very much for 
your support on the one release that we got. You were very 
helpful . 

Warden Runnels. 

MR. RUNNELS: First of all, I would like to thank 
the Committee for allowing me to come before you today. 

I have 20 years of service with the California 


Department of Corrections. I started as a correctional officer 
in 1982 at Deuel Vocational Institution and promoted through the 
custody chain of command to my present position as Warden at 
High Desert State Prison. 

In addition, I accepted assignments as an 
employee relations officer and correctional business manager. 
These assignments gave me experience in personal management 
practices and physical management. 

I have worked at three different institutions 
during my career: Deuel Vocational Institution; California 
State Prison at Solano; and my present prison, High Desert State 
Prison . 

I am actively involved in the community as a 
member of the Rotary Club of Susanville. I have coordinated and 
participated in many fund raising activities in our community. 
I maintain a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement 
officials, community leaders, to ensure the prison is viewed as 
a partner with the local community. 

I believe strongly in communication between 
staff, inmates, and my administration. I empower staff to do 
their jobs and maintain an open line of communication with staff 
and inmates. 

My understanding of High Desert State Prison's 
mission, together with my correctional expertise, make me 
uniquely qualified to be Warden at High Desert State Prison. 

I would be happy to answer any of your questions 
at this time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Deuel Vocational, that's youth; 



MR. RUNNELS: DVI is not Youth Authority. It's 
part of the California Department of Corrections. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many lockdowns have 
occurred since you've been at High Desert, and how long have 
they lasted, roughly, do you know? 

MR. RUNNELS: As far as a total lockdown of the 
institution, or a specific segment of the institution, sir? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Let's do total, and then let's 
go section by section. 

MR. RUNNELS: Total lockdown of the institution, 
we've had one since I've been the Warden of High Desert State 
Prison . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Or Acting Warden? Warden and 
Acting Warden. 

MR. RUNNELS: As Acting Warden and Warden. There 
was one total lockdown. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many sectional lockdowns? 

MR. RUNNELS: Numerous. Numerous. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Too numerous to recall? 

MR. RUNNELS: I can look it up. 


MR. RUNNELS: I would say that Facility A, which 
is our Level III facility, has probably had eight to ten in the 
last year-and-a-half . Facility B has had four major incidents 
in the last 14 months. Facility C, you have an upper yard and a 
lower yard. We've had numerous lockdowns there; I would say 
probably in excess of 20 to 30. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: In total, close to 50? 

MR. RUNNELS: I would say that would be probably 
at bottom end of the spectrum if you look at the institutional 
wide . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That 50 would be at the bottom? 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes. If you combined all the 
facilities and the different modified programs that we've had to 
run on them, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it would be more than 50? 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes, I believe it would. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long do they usually last? 

MR. RUNNELS: It depends on the severity of the 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: What's the longest that you can 

MR. RUNNELS: Since I've been the Acting Warden, 
the longest has probably been Facility B that has lasted for 
probably two months at a time. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: What happened in Facility B? 

MR. RUNNELS: Fourteen months ago we started with 
a Southern Hispanic and black inmate riot of 200 inmates. So, it 
started over a basketball game. 

It took us probably two months to identify who 
were instigators of the incident, get them moved to alternative 
housing, and start a gradual unlock process on the facility. We 
made it to the last day of the gradual unlock process, which was 


probably about two months after the initial -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it took two months to 
figure out who started the fight? 

MR. RUNNELS: Well, and search the facility, and 
tc interview all the inmate population; yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Was it a fight with fists, or a 
fight with knives, or what? 

MR. RUNNELS: There were weapons involved, yes. 


MR. RUNNELS: Inmate-manufactured slicing devices 
which have razor blades melted in and also knives. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it took two months to 
search your place? 

MR. RUNNELS: It takes approximately — it's a 
270 facility. It takes us approximately three weeks to search 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Then three weeks to search, and 
then five weeks to figure Out who started it, or who was 
involved, or what? 

MR. RUNNELS: Usually you start with who is 
involved right away because you have the crime scene. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long did that take you? 
Wouldn't you look for weapons before you knew who was involved? 

In other words, would you search the whole 

MR. RUNNELS: We would search — 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Because I would think weapons 
would be more important to know than who threw the first punch. 


MR. RUNNELS: We would -- we would search the 
entire facility. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: But wouldn't you go for weapons 
before you go for who it was? 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes. It's kind of a combined 
effort. You have your Investigative Services Unit that's 
investigating the crime. They're looking at the crime scene 
diagram, who was on the yard, what the location -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, I would think the first 
thing you want to do is find out if there's any weapons. 

MR. RUNNELS: Absolutely. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Regardless of who started it or 
who did it, that that would be the first thing you're looking 
for . 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes, at the incident site, 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: No, but I guess you search the 
whole section in lockdown; don't you? 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes, we do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Wouldn't that be the first 
thing you'd do as opposed to -- 

MR. RUNNELS: We start the search process within 
the first probably 24 hours. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, it's three weeks to do the 
search, and concurrently you're trying to find out who caused 
the problem. Then you do the search; you find out who caused 
the problem, and how much longer do you keep them in lockdown? 

MR. RUNNELS: It depends on whether we've 


resolved the problem within the selected groups of inmates that 
are involved in the issue. 

Sometimes you may be through your search process 
to your investigative process, but the intelligence that you're 
getting from the inmate population on the one-on-one interviews 
are telling you that the problem still exists, and that if you 
unlock those two groups, they're going to riot again. They're 
going to attack each other on sight. So, you have to work 
through that. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: It's assumed everybody in the 
section is going to be beefing with each other, or is it just 
groups within groups? 

MR. RUNNELS: It's usually groups within groups, 
and we pretty much, like during the Facility B modified program, 
it affected the Southern Hispanics and the blacks, but not the 
other inmate population. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: What kind of steps can you take 
to prevent a lockdown? 

MR. RUNNELS: I think you have to prevent the 
violence . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How do you do that? 

MR. RUNNELS: Well, I think that we have to be 
more proactive than reactive to inmate violence. 

Currently what we're doing on Facility B, because 
it has been problematic for us for the last 14 months, is we're 
trying a new unlock protocol in Facility B. 

During our one-on-one interviews with the inmate 
population, we're talking to them about doing their individual 


time and not participating in gang activity, and push the gang, 
you know, mentality. And then we're moving them from a GP into 
an isolated building. And we're starting a slow integration 
which mandates that they actually eat together with other races, 
they go to the Day Room together. And we're pushing in-cell 
management and anger management training through Breaking 
Barriers, and we're also using our media center, the television 
system, to push that out to the inmate population. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have waiting lists for 
the anger management courses? 

MR. RUNNELS: At this point, I have probably I 
would say 40 percent of .the inmates on that yard that want to 
participate in that unlock protocol and do their own time. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In anger management? 

MR. RUNNELS: In anger management is part of 
that, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How many slots are there for 
them to do it? 

MR. RUNNELS: It's an in-cell program, so we can 
do as many that want to participate. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Not like the Youth Authority, 
where they keep them so long, by the time they get in it, they 
hit the counselor. 

According to our staff, there's more health care 
staff vacancies where you are than in most institutions. What 
problem do you have filling them, where you're located? 

MR. RUNNELS: It's pretty much the rural area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: People don't want to go up 



MR. RUNNELS: Well, I think it takes a certain 
type of personality or individual that wants to live in a rural, 
mountainous area. 

Now, we have been pretty -- more successful of 
late than we had in the past. I think some, you know, contract 
issues, once resolved through that process, might assist us in 
helping to recruit some professional medicals. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Does Corrections, do they give 
like a boondock differential, so to speak? 

MR. RUNNELS: To some classifications. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about to health people? 
How about like in the health area? 

MR. RUNNELS: I believe that some of your mental 
health classifications do receive stipends, but I think that's 
based on the profession and not necessarily the location at 
Susanville. There is no stipend specifically for High Desert 
State Prison or in the Susanville area in any classification. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Now, you get to Susanville by 
going over to Nevada and coming back? 

MR. RUNNELS: That's -- the average person goes 
through Reno, yes. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You would think that in areas 
like that, that they should probably give some kind of 
differential if it's tough to get people up there. Because 
otherwise, they don't get adequate health care, and then there's 
a lawsuit by the Prison Law Office, and the state loses. Then 
they appeal; then they lose. They don't pay, and the interest 


runs . 

Probably for chump change, they could have got 
enough people to work there if they gave them a price 
differential . 

MR. RUNNELS: I agree with you. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How long is your pre-release 

MR. RUNNELS: Our pre-release program is a 
standard three-week program. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Everybody's three week. That's 
not enough. 

Senator Johnson and I were just talking. It 
would seem, unless somebody's doing a flat ten, you may not 
start the day they walk in, but it would seem all the time 
people are incarcerated, they should be kind of directed towards 
release . 

MR. RUNNELS: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Otherwise, we could just leave 
everybody in for life. 

MR. RUNNELS: Right. We are doing with Shasta 
County kind of a pilot program with Shasta County called 
Operation Hope, which we link with the Probation Department of 
Shasta County, and I think it's -- I can't remember the name of 
the enterprise -- but they work with us upon the inmate coming 
to our Reception Center. And if he stays at High Desert, they 
get involved in setting -- helping to talk to the inmate. It's 
a voluntary promise if the inmate chooses to participate, but 
give them advice on vocational training they need to get. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: It just should be a current, 
like, you know, people I would assume in prisons have a fair 
amount of the time on their hands. It would seem to me to just 
be an ongoing thing. And I don't know if it got lost when we 
got rid of, quote, "the purpose is to rehabilitate, " which, you 
know, somebody must have thought meant coddling as opposed to 
either store, warehouse, or punish. 

But it seems to me one of the great theories 
about people going into prison is, hopefully, when they come 
out, they aren't going to go back. And at least to me, the 
greater degree we pay attention and try to let them know that 
there's something else they could be doing, the less chance it 
is that they're going to come back, except for a few people 
that, I guess, are sociopaths that are always going to be there. 

Senator Johnson. 

SENATOR JOHNSON: We did have a conversation 
about this, and I understand that this is outside of your 
capability perhaps even to influence. 

But it just doesn't make any sense to me that 
you'd have three weeks of pre-release. I mean, to me that's now 
just a kid going to college for four years, and you say in the 
last three weeks, you get your education. I mean, someone who's 
in prison for four years, it seems to me, logically we know at 
some point they're going to get out of there. 

And it's not, Senator Burton, my judgment 
inconsistent with punishment, and having punishment being the 
oasic purpose, to also say we're going to prepare these people 
fcr the day they walk out the door, and hopefully, they're never 


going to come back again. 

One observation. 

Second observation is, and again, I recognize 
this is outside of your ability, certainly, to totally control, 
but I was horrified at your indicating that it took three weeks 
to conduct a search. 

Common sense tells me that's got to, in large 
part, be a result of just the design of the facility. If you 
can't go through and search it thoroughly in a matter of a 
couple of hours, if there are that number of places where you 
can hide contraband, or you can hide weapons, that's just a 
terrible, terrible design. 

I don't know who, Mr. Chairman, is the 
appropriate person to be looking at that, and what kind of 
standards we have in the design of these institutions, but that 
just makes no sense to me at all. 

And again, I realize this is not a question for 
you. But it would seem to me that any warden at any facility 
around the state ought to be able to make recommendations for 
modifications of the facilities as they exist now, the physical 
plant, to minimize the opportunity for hiding contraband. 

Apart from that, I have no questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Romero. 


With respect to the lockdowns, can you tell us 
what types of services the inmate can still access during a 
lockdown, for example, showers, or the library, dental, medical 
care? Can you detail that please? 


MR. RUNNELS: Yes. They're allowed three showers 
a week during a lockdown by escort. 

SENATOR ROMERO: And otherwise, when it's not 
locked down, it is daily? 

MR. RUNNELS: When it's not on lockdown, it 
depends on their program, their privilege group. In other 
words, an inmate that is what we consider A1A, which is of the 
high privilege group, which means they're participating in work 
or education type program, they have access to the shower on a 
daily basis. 

Your A2B or your C over C inmates obviously don't 
have as much out of cell time as your A1A type inmates. 

In addition to showers, we have all medical 
services that are ducketed by priority ducket, and we escort 
them to and from, which is your medical, your mental health, and 
your dental, law library, and visiting. 

We basically in a sense, we don't, during a 
lockdown, run work-type assignments and/or recreation. 

SENATOR ROMERO: You mentioned in your statement 
that you had submitted a proposal that had been approved to 
change the way in which you unlock a facility. Can you describe 
that, and why it has advantages over what was being done before? 

MR. RUNNELS: I think that my experience, and 
I've been at High Desert for probably four years, is, one, we 
have a younger, more violent, doing a longer period -- a longer 
prison sentence, and they don't value life, and they're looking 
for immediate gratification, not long-term. Our current work 
incentive program obviously allows that if somebody participates 


in work incentive, that that gets a day off their sentence for 
the time that they work or they program positively in prison. 

But if you've got a 20-some-year-old, very angry 
at society individual who is, you know, for a long portion of 
their life been involved in gangs, they don't care about day for 
day. Chances are, they're doing 30, 40, 50 years, maybe life 
sentences. They're looking for immediate gratification, which 
is spending time with their group on the yard, canteen access, 
drugs, packages, visiting, those type of privileges more than 
day for day. 

My philosophy on Facility B, which is the 
facility that we're piloting the unlock process, was to try and 
get the inmates -- because I truly believe that you have 20 
percent of your inmate population in the Level IV environment 
that are basically, pardon the expression, but stirring the pot. 
And then you have 80 percent that want to program, but the 20 
percent won't allow them because they have leverage, in that my 
staff, you know, our disciplinary process, administrative 
process, says we're going to write you a 115; you're probably 
looking at losing some good time credit, but if you're doing 
life, who cares, and that we're going to give you a SHU program. 

Whereas, the gang's influence on the inmate 
population is, if you don't do what we tell you to do, we're 
going to kill you. 

And as far as you're going tea SHU program, that 
gives them more status in the gang than it does -- you know, 
it's not a deterrent. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Just an aside. 


Let's not call the SHU program a program. It 
ain't a program. 

MR. RUNNELS: Okay, the Security Housing Unit. 


MR. RUNNELS: But what we're doing is, we're 
interviewing the inmate population, and we're actually having 
them sign a contract saying that they want to do their own time, 
and they want to defer from gang activity. 

Once they do that, we're giving them in-cell 
study program on anger management through Breaking Barriers and 
Alternatives to Violence. We're moving them from the general 
population housing unit to a specific housing unit so that we 
can basically slowly start an integrated unlock with an 
in-housing unit type program first, which means there'll be Day 
Room Program. But we're not going to be showing normal t.v. 
during the Day Room Program; we're going to be showing anger 
management Alternatives to Violence type program through our 
Media Center. 

And then, it would be integrated feeding. 
They're required to integrate during feeding, not self- 
segregate . 

And then from there, we'll step them up to 
basically yard activity, recreation, and full-time employment 
opportunities . 

And then through that process, I believe we can 
identify who that 20 percent is that's truly down for the gang 
activity because they won't sign the agreement. They won't 
participate because that's kind of going against their principle 


in the gang activity, which will then be able to allow us to 
identify them, and do appropriate housing changes on them to get 
them out of the GP so they're not affecting it any more. 

SENATOR ROMERO: How far are you in the pilot 
process right now, and are you finding that it's working better 
than the previous way of unlocking? 

MR. RUNNELS: So far we're, like I said, in the 
process of finishing up our search of the facility. And at that 
point, we have probably, I would say, 40 percent of the inmate 
population that has all ready agreed to enter into the program 
voluntarily, that have already expressed it. We have the 
curriculum developed. 

So, as soon as we finish the search process, 
we're going to be sending the one-on-one interviews, where they 
sign the contract and we actually talk to them about it. And 
then from that point, we'll be moving them. 

It could take, for the entire facility to return 
to normal program, a lengthy process. 

SENATOR ROMERO: You also mentioned concern about 
the budget. Does this type of an unlocking procedure cost more 
money? I know, again, you can't do anything about the budget, 
but you also raise in your statement a concern about trying to 
curb and reduce the levels of violence that you acknowledge are 
all ready at an unacceptable level at the institution. 

What are the budgetary concerns? 

MR. RUNNELS: Well, this style of unlock is not 
driving dollars. I mean, in a perfect world with, you know, 
more funding, instead of doing in-cell study with anger 


management and Alternatives to Violence, it would be better in a 
formal type classroom setting. 

We're doing it in in-cell because we just don't 
have the funds to create the classroom space. Not necessarily 
the space, but the instructors to teach the program. 

So, I know at High Desert since I've been there, 
other than the initial emergency that warrants the lockdown, 
lockdown itself or modified program doesn't drive overtime cost. 
You search with existing staff on the facility. You use support 
staff to perform functions, you know, other than like being in a 
classroom. They're going to be doing some in-cell study, or you 
use them for assisting in the search process in common areas, or 
in the kitchen and alternative work areas. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Knight. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: No questions. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Senator Karnette. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: You mentioned differentials 
for health care professionals. 

Who would decide on those differentials? Are 
they in CCPOA or not? 

MR. RUNNELS: No. They're operating engineers, 
but I think that would be something between their bargaining 
unit and probably DPA. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: But they all have bargaining 
units, everybody that's employed in the health care industry? 

MR. RUNNELS: I believe so, yes, ma'am. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: So, they could, the bargaining 


unit could, look at differentials for High Desert? 


SENATOR KARNETTE: If they so chose, okay. 

My next question is, what about visitors there? 
You know, you're so far from urban areas. Are most of the 
people there from urban areas? 

MR. RUNNELS: Actually, most of our visitors, we 
don't get that many because, obviously, we're so remote. And 
especially during the winter months, we get very few visits at 
our institution. 

But I would say most of the visitors come from 
Southern California. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Where are the prisoners from? 

MR. RUNNELS: Oh, the prisoners. I would say the 
majority of my inmate population are from Southern California or 
the Bay Area. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: I have one more question. You 
were talking about hard core. I think that's true. I mean, 
it's amazing how prisons sound like classrooms modified. 

Do you have psychologists or people that are 
interested in studying the behaviors of the hard core? Anybody 
ever come in to really study those behaviors? 

MR. RUNNELS: Not that I'm aware of. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Because there must be a way to 
change their behavior. I know it's a dream. 

MR. RUNNELS: My experience, and I've been doing 
this for 20 years, is that I think age does more change than 
anything with the inmate population. When they're younger, they 


tend to be more prone to violence and the gang activity and the 
criminal behavior. And I think it's almost like they get burned 
out on it going through the process. 

So at, you know, the latter part of the years, or 
en they mature a little bit is, I guess, a better way of 
putting it. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: They just get tired. They 
don't value life any more, though, do you think? 

MR. RUNNELS: I would agree with that. The 
younger criminals that we have in the system now, they have no 
value of life. They are looking for immediate gratification, 
which means, if you have something I want and you wn ' t give it 
to me, then I'll take it from you. And that's pretty much what 
we deal with on a daily basis in the maximum security side of 
e institution. 

SENATOR KARNETTE: Do they get very many 
visitors, the hard core? 

MR. RUNNELS:' We get very few visitors at High 




SENATOR KARNETTE: You can't tell which ones get 

more visi 

MR. RUNNELS: I could not tell you whether it 
would be somebody involved in gang activity. When I walk around 
the visiting room, they're all on their best behavior. I mean, 
you know, they're not showing their tattoos as much, and they're 
r.cre talking to their parents or their family members. 



CHAIRMAN BURTON: How is it determined who goes 
to Susanville? Do they pick people without families or 
something, or what? 

MR. RUNNELS: No. The classification system, 
most cases do like the Reception Centers. Once the case is 
worked up with all the case factors, a CSR looks at the case. 
And based on bed availability in the Department and the 
classification of the inmate, the CSR endorses the inmate to a 
place like High Desert State Prison. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Has anybody ever done a study, 
because in theory, one of the things that helps people not come 
back is a relationship to their community and their family. And 
if you're up in Susanville, unless you're a lumberjack, I don't 
know what kind of relationship to the community or your 

Anybody ever done a study to see whether or not 
people who get out of Susanville end up, just because of its 
location in isolation, end up being more recidivist than those 
that are in a prison where at least, you know, their families 
can visit, or friends, or there's some sense of community? 

MR. RUNNELS: I'm not aware of such a study. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: How about you, Mike? Did they 

ever do that? 

so, Senator 

MR. NEAL [FROM THE AUDIENCE]: I don't believe 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't we give them 
something to do. It'd just be kind of interesting. I mean, 


Pelican Bay, at least Eureka's not Susanville, you know. 

Do you have any family here? 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes, sir, I do. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Would you like to introduce 
them, please? 

MR. RUNNELS: Yes, I would. My wife, Michelle 
Runnels; my daughter, Ashley Runnels; my uncle, Gary Runnels; 
and my aunt, Kathy Runnels; and my son made it, Nicholas 
Runnels . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You all live in Susanville? 

MR. RUNNELS: No. My aunt and uncle live, I 
think it's Grass Valley area. And my son is going to college 
down in the Sacramento area. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Witnesses in support. Name, 
rank, and serial number. Most of them addressed, I think, 
Brother Mabry, you addressed your support for all. 

MR. MABRY [FROM THE AUDIENCE] : Yes, you were 
absent . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I appreciate that. 
[Laughter . ] 

MR. TATUM: Hello again. I'm Richard Tatum. I'm 
the State President of the California Correctional Supervisors. 

In listening to some of the questions that was 
asked here, I'd like to say -- I hadn't planned on it -- but to 
say that High Desert is a very violent, high custody 
institution. The job that Mr. Runnels here has is probably much 
more difficult than a lot of the prisons and a lot of the 
v.-ardens' jobs that are around the state. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's who gets sent there, by 
and large, bad actors, so to speak? 

MR. TATUM: Yes, it is. It's the type of 
institution that we send bad folks to. 

I worked 32 years myself in the Department of 
Corrections; 27 years of it being a supervisor. I've worked a 
lot of different institutions, very violent institutions. And 
High Desert is one of those with it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: So, we shouldn't worry about 
them being far from their families? 

MR. TATUM: Not too much. 

But basically what I'm saying is, this is a more 
difficult job. I'd like to commend Mr. Runnels on his ability 
to deal with these type of inmates. 

Our supervisors up there totally support him. We 
request your support. 


Witnesses in opposition. 

MS. BIRD: I'm Cayenne Bird of the UNION, as you 
know . 

We have to voice opposition against Dave Runnels 
for the following reasons. We feel that he doesn't have control 
of the guards. We know it's a very violent institution, that 
there has to be some lockdown procedures from time to time, but 
I have files full, files full of complaints that I'd be happy to 
share with you that would indicate that this institution is on 
lockdown like 90 percent of the time. 

This means that the families can't visit. I 


believe that a strong part of rehabilitation is that the 
families can visit, that there's a connection, that they can 
feel that they're fathers. And, you know, a lot of these young 
people have children. 

And I think that this is dysfunctional to have 
this much lockdown. That it's creating isolation and probably 
contributing to the violence. 

I have reports that it was in lockdown, mostly 
lockdown 11 months in 2001, and all of this year except for 
three weeks. 

I'm compiling a report of lockdowns in prisons 
statewide. It's Pelican Bay, High Desert, and Lancaster. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Once you do that, it would be 
helpful if you do, like, lockdown of the total institution; 
lockdown of part of the institution. 

MS. BIRD: Yes, the yards. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I assume 11 months was not the 
whole prison. It was like', part of it was the whole prison; 
part of it was different classrooms. 

MS. BIRD: It varies at different times, but 
almost always on lockdown. It's like a perpetual state. It's 
as if they can't control the inmates, you know, because there is 
this high violence. So, what they do as a solution is lock them 
down. And it might be the only solution that he feels that he 
has . 

The two months for searching, that's going on at 
all of the institutions. Do you remember when I made the point 
about overtime, and guards love lockdown? They usually bring 


people from the lower camps to handle the kitchen, and the dirty 
work, and so forth. They bring in groups, outsiders, to do 
these searches, and it normally does take a long time. For some 
reason, the guards love lockdowns. 

What we think has happened here, I have several 
reports about two riots up there. We think that they were 
instigated by the same people twice in a row. They come off 
lockdown, and here's this black-white group getting into a riot 
again. And we have specific names and so forth, you know. I 
don't know want to say that and put the inmates at risk, but I 
am give that to you. 

And so, we think that sometimes the guards are 
causing these lockdowns, that it's safer for them. They don't 
have to do yard, so on and so forth. Especially here at High 
Desert. We think it also happens at Pelican Bay and at 
Lancaster . 

We understand that these people are 
dysfunctional, a little mentally ill. We don't think that it 
helps to punish the mentally ill. It's a fine line between 
who's criminally insane and who's just sick, you know, from 
whatever problems, but they should be treated in more of a 
healing manner. The way that Ms. Butler does her prison, I 
think, would be more constructive and lower the violence. Just 
my two cents there. 

Here's an example. On C Yard, I have some 
specifics that November 26th, 2001, through January 3rd, 2002, 
they missed Christmas, New Years, and the inmates' birthday 
visits. They were cut off from their families. No visits, and 


no holiday, it's just so much -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Do you have any idea what 
precipitated that? 

MS. BIRD: It was over trays missing, I believe, 
that particular one. I can check for sure. 

No, that was the segue to the February 2nd 
through March 1st. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That misses Christmas and 

MS. BIRD: I'll check that one. 

The one February 2nd through March 1st, that was 
because two trays were missing from the kitchen. One had been 
missing a week before lockdown. In the month of the lockdown, 
many inmates did not get to the canteen because of the number 
drawing system that they have there that decides who goes, so 
that makes everybody really distraught, really irritated. 

The more they lock down, the worse they get. 
They didn't have writing paper, so they were really cut off in 
lockdown. If they had broken t.v.s, they don't get their mail; 
they don't -- just all kinds of interference with the mail, even 
from our own mail, inside the UNION mail. We often have 
problems . 

So, this particular lockdown that I'm addressing, 
the inmates on D Yard stabbed a child molester to death, but 
they were not put on lockdown until days later. 

So, you have the tray situation, and then you 
have the child molester stabbed to death. That one took days, 
and the tray thing was right away. 


CHAIRMAN BURTON: The tray was missing for a 
week, you said. 

MS. BIRD: One of the trays were missing. Two 
trays were missing. They put them on lockdown, as my reports 
indicate . 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: They shut it down. The tray 
was missing for a week, you said, when they shut it down. 

MS. BIRD: And then they shut it down. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: The stabbed child molester, 
they both got a week before lockdown. That's how I heard it. 

MS. BIRD: Let me make sure. That's how you 
heard it, okay. 

One tray had been missing for a whole week. And 
then when a second tray came up missing, then the lockdown went 
into effect immediately. 

So, we aren't just putting people on lockdown 
system-wide over violent things. I mean, a cell phone was found 
at Lancaster. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: In theory, and I'm not a great 
fan of lockdowns; I'm not even a great fan of the Department of 
Corrections . 

What are the trays made of; steel trays? 

MR. RUNNELS: They're plastic. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Plastic trays that conceivably 
could be broken up and made into something. It might have been 
part of the broken tray that they killed the child molester 
with . 

It isn't like somebody misplaced a library book. 

MS. BIRD: They have a lot of weapons out there. 
We have multiple reports on weapons. We have reports that the 
COs only find them when it's convenient. 

I don't why we have to have the Nortinos and the 
Soutinos in the same prison. When you go into Mule Creek, they 
make you declare, are you part of this group or that group? And 
even if you're not even a gang member, they make you declare 
which group are you a part of. 

Why can't we just have Soutinos in one place and 
the Nortinos in another place? 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Probably the ACLU would be on 
them in a heartbeat. 

MS. BIRD: So, we have extreme violence, reports 
of extreme retribution. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Ma'am, and I don't want to cut 
you off, but I've got to cut you off because we've got a budget 

But you can't have an argument against lockdowns 
and then state there's extreme violence, because I think when 
you have violence, that's probably what gets lockdowns, by and 
large . 

Although, I think, and I'm checking into the 
things about the overtime on the lockdowns. 

MS. BIRD: It's synonymous. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Well, I checked with somebody 
and they said it wasn't, so I'm double checking. They have 
these shifts. I mean, it's kind of like somebody caught in a 
forest fire. 


But I think that we are going to check out 
whether or not somebody can do something. 

They've got such a good contract, they don't 
really need even bogus overtime. 

[Laughter . ] 

MS. BIRD: I believe that it's one of those 
hidden costs. I've been researching the topic myself, and I 
have a lot of input on that I'd be happy to share. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Can you wrap it up, because we 
do have a budget hearing. 

MS. BIRD: Yes. 

We feel that the psychological problems that the 
extreme lockdown is causing, the unsanitary practices in the 
kitchen, mental and dental neglect, secrecy to an extreme level, 
is making people sicker than before they were put up there. So, 
we have people with the worst problems in the system, and 
they're probably getting some of the least amount of the help 
that they need to return in better condition. We don't believe 
that perpetual lockdown is acceptable. We've been just about 
ready to picket High Desert for some time, and we may end up 
doing that yet. 

I just feel that this is the tip of the iceberg. 
They're doing the same thing up there with the food, with the 
mystery meat sandwiches, and no citrus, and artificial sugar 
full of chemicals. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Prison's like the Army. Every 
post gets the same diet. 

Or does each prison have a different menu? 


MR. RUNNELS: Basically the Department comes out 
h an approved menu, and then you try -- 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: There's a lot of citrus in the 
menu I looked at . 

Apples aren't citrus; are they? 

MS. BIRD: Apples and oranges. That's about it. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: That's citrus; isn't it? 

MS. BIRD: No. Citrus is what you take to 
event lyme disease: grapefruit, lemons, oranges. The oranges 
help, but it's mostly apples. There's no variety. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Who knows what an apple is. 

SENATOR KNIGHT: Hey, I know what an apple is. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: I mean, if it's not citrus, 
what's other thing they call it? 

SENATOR KNIGHT: It's a fruit. 
[Laughter . ] 

SENATOR JOHNSON: I love it when he gives a 
technical answer. 

MS. BIRD: Senator Burton, these high 
carbohydrate diets are not filling. It's the protein that fills 
them up. So, you know, it's no fresh food. They don't have 
enough citrus. They are doing it with mystery meat sandwiches, 
no special diets. And it would put anybody in bad mood. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: You're right back with that. 

I think what we ought to have you do is actually 
arrange a sit down for you and the Director of Corrections. 
Have you ever met him, just you and he? 

MS. BIRD: No. He's very inaccessible. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Why don't you do that, Mike. 
Mr. Neal back there, he'll set you up with a meeting, you and 
the Director. 

MS. BIRD: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: Move the nomination. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Karnette. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Karnette Aye. Senator Knight. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Knight Aye. Senator Romero. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Romero Aye. Senator Johnson. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Johnson Aye. Senator Burton. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Burton Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN BURTON: And I think also, Mike, Senator 
Presley, the Secretary. 

Thank you very much. Congratulations. 
[Thereupon this portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing 

was terminated at approximately. 

3:37 P.M. ] 




I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

.-0 1 


day of 

1 isi 


, 2002 

^ <■»*-- c 

Shorthand Reporter 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.75 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 456-R when ordering.